Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    7:21 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US news > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Boy Scouts Of America To Admit Gay Scouts and Leaders Back to Topics
worryfree

Champion Author
Twin Cities

Posts:27,417
Points:2,452,830
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 1:25:05 PM

Finally
From FOX News

[Edited by: worryfree at 1/29/2013 1:27:36 PM EST]
REPLIES (newest first) Topic is locked
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,402
Points:2,568,160
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 29, 2013 10:56:57 PM

BT, I see you have no interest in honest discussion, seeing as how you take every opportunity to misconstrue and misinterpret what I say, and impute the worst possible motives to me as well.

A person in your position interested in honest discussion would simply think that I am mistaken. That does not seem to be your attitude. You seem to hate my position -- so much so I have to wonder if your mention of a "girlfriend" is some sort of cover.

In any case, given that the Boy Scouts have made their decision, this topic is pretty well done.

GTH
Profile Pic
KatmanDo
Champion Author Detroit

Posts:15,537
Points:3,243,010
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: May 28, 2013 2:17:41 PM

"studies that showed children were starting to assert their sexuality as young as 2 years of age.
I don't remember back to that age, but I knew I was heterosexual when I was 6."

The first crush I can remember was in kindergarten or first grade. Then it was another classmate in second grade and a third one in third grade which lasted several years. That one was perhaps the most intense crush of my life -- and it started at least three years before I learned about the "birds and the bees". It had nothing to do with wanting to touch the subjects of my affection; it had everything to do with wanting to bask in their presence as much as I could, to feast my eyes on their charms.

So, personally, I tend to be quite skeptical about those who claim they never felt anything magical about any of their peers prior to puberty, as that is so different from my own experiences.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,455
Points:3,837,565
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: May 28, 2013 3:46:18 AM

Yeah, I seem to remember that guy was actually pretty popular for some time, he was a VERY effective and dynamic public speaker, basically mesmerizing the masses.
It seems he was straight, but would certain people suggest he was a "normative" model of manhood? LOL!



[Edited by: rumbleseat at 5/28/2013 3:46:44 AM EST]
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,387
Points:792,675
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: May 28, 2013 12:45:50 AM

rumbleseat, wasn't there a guy in Europe somewhere about 80 years ago that told people that being Jewish was a sort of disorder, and that people with that disorder should be banned from being in politics and if that failed, to basically stand up and tell the other citizens that they were Jewish and not truly human? Didn't that attitude eventually promote active discrimination (and worse)?
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,387
Points:792,675
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: May 28, 2013 12:41:22 AM

BT: "Of course not, if you define manhood as being heterosexual."

gas_too_high “Bingo.”

So, your only definition of being a man is that they have to be heterosexual? So what do you call priests then? Do you consider them eunuchs?

Do you consider Alexander the Great wasn't a man?

I can see now why you're so mixed up about it if your only criteria for manhood is that a person be heterosexual and “do it” with women. Perhaps you even think Stephen Hawking isn't a man? After all, he can't do it with anybody.

“Except promote a non-normative version of manhood, by in any way proclaiming that homosexuality is normal, which is as simple as calling themselves "homosexuals" without also acknowledging that such condition is not a normal condition.”

Again, why does one have to be “normative” to be a Boy Scout?

Do you think that somebody with a prosthetic leg should be prohibited from being a Scout? After all, that's “non-normative”. People with diabetes are “non-normative” too, and when the BSA was first formed they seldom lived long enough to be Scouts.

“An important part of either manhood or womanhood is properly relating (and I'm not referring to sexually, but the whole gamut of interpersonal relations) to the opposite gender as well as one's own gender. Homosexual behavior inverts those relationships.”

No it doesn't. There are two homosexual men where I work. Both of them relate to the rest of us exactly the same as anybody else. One of them I would never have guessed that he was gay if he hadn't had his 'partner' pick him up from work sometimes. (I guess they only have one car). The other one is sort of effeminate but still within the “normative” parameters of most men, and it's only because others who know him better have told me that he's gay that I'm “sure”.

Both of them relate to both men and women within the “normative” of what's allowed between employees.

But it's quite informative to know that you define homosexuals as something other than “men”. Does that mean you don't consider lesbians as “women” either?

"You have never proved that homosexuality is a freely chosen behavior."

“So when one either commits homosexual acts, identifies as homosexual and proclaims that to others, that's not a choice? Is there hypnosis, mental illness or something else involved?”

Sorry, a typo. I'd meant to say “You have never proved that homosexuality is a freely chosen orientation” to satisfy your semantics. But then, I don't make an artificial distinction between the person and their “condition” as you do.

Of course behavior is chosen, but what you're asking for is therefore that you think that all homosexuals should either choose to be celibate for their entire lives, or that they should pretend to be heterosexual and therefore live a lie. Neither of those is realistic, and the latter is something you yourself have decried.

"You've never even said that you chose your own sexual orientation."

“which is one of your problems -- you cannot or won't separate the condition from the action, or separate the person from the condition.”

And why should a homosexual “separate themselves from the condition”? Why should they have to live a lie, which is basically what you are wanting them to do? Humans are among the most sexually active of all creatures on the planet. To demand that they suppress their true nature just to satisfy some people who don't like it is bordering on cruel and unusual punishment.

“Or recognize that a normative orientation is not on the same level as a non-normative one.”

Society has progressed and matured past the old traditions where everybody has to be “normative”. Downs syndrome kids are allowed out in public now. Deaf and blind people are now allowed into the workforce.

“And I bet you will respond, not directly, but with another round of quibbling and accusations that evade those issues.”

Please point out where I have not addressed your points directly. “Quibbling” and “evasion” are your stock in trade.

Unless of course you've redefined those words to fit your argument as you have other words.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,387
Points:792,675
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: May 28, 2013 12:35:49 AM

gas_too_high "Or do you call a person with a disability a "cripple"?"

No. But I don't discriminate against them either. I treat them as equals.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,387
Points:792,675
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: May 28, 2013 12:33:39 AM

kiatoindos "I don't think the kids even know what their preferences are at that age as for leaders hell no! So much for eagle scout now sparrow scout!"

Then your thoughts would be wrong.

I've already posted a link to studies that showed children were starting to assert their sexuality as young as 2 years of age.

I don't remember back to that age, but I knew I was heterosexual when I was 6.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,455
Points:3,837,565
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: May 28, 2013 12:29:01 AM

"By your logic, diagnosing someone with a mental disorder is just like calling someone a lunatic or a retard."

Now THAT is a ridiculous statement.
It is you that continually tells us that being gay is a "condition", that being gay is a mental disorder, it is you that believes boys with that "condition" should be banned from scouting, or, if that fails, to basically stand up and tell the other scouts he is gay and not truly normal.
Such an attitude promotes active discrimination. Promoting or even passively condoning discrimination is "non-normative" human social behaviour. Man appears to be the only animal that actually discriminates against homosexual behaviour, thank goodness man is finally beginning to learn from the animal world what is acceptable.
Perhaps unreasonable refusal to accept equality of fellow human beings who happen to be different should be diagnosed as a "mental condition", akin to paranoia, or perhaps even "delusional".

[Edited by: rumbleseat at 5/28/2013 12:34:55 AM EST]
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,387
Points:792,675
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: May 28, 2013 12:28:54 AM

No1doc “Looks like we're not using the phrase "sexualizing kids" in the same way.”

I think we're using it in the same way. But looking at your next sentences: “
If they were the cause, I'd expect there to be more rather than no homosexuals. GLSEN school groups, lesbian chic on college campuses, television and movies, all consistently send a "gay' affirming message. Now the BSA has joined the club.” it appears that we're just looking at different age groups.

gas_too_high claims that kids “aren't even aware of their sexuality at age 10”. I haven't been in grade school for a long time, but I doubt that even now there are GLSEN school groups in grade 5. BUT, as I already pointed out, with links to research on that exact issue, kids are already becoming aware of their sexual orientation before that, sometimes as young as 2 years old.

And if fashion was what made kids homosexual or heterosexual, then there should have been MORE homosexuals in the past, since as I've pointed out, at the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries it was common for boys and girls both to wear dresslike clothing at least until they were toilet trained.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,387
Points:792,675
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: May 28, 2013 12:27:56 AM

gas_too_high "I hope you don't labor under the mistaken impression that you have the "right" never to be exposed to the religious beliefs of others."

I have no problem with people of various religions having their own beliefs. The Constitution gives people the right to delude themselves in whatever manner they see fit.

What they DON'T have the right for though is to force those beliefs on others.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,402
Points:2,568,160
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 27, 2013 10:41:04 PM

BT: "But with the exception of having intercourse with members of the opposite sex (which is against BSA rules and therefore irrelevant) there is nothing about being a man that heterosexuals do in the BSA that homosexuals don't do also."

GTH: "Except promote a non-normative version of manhood, by in any way proclaiming that homosexuality is normal, which is as simple as calling themselves "homosexuals" without also acknowledging that such condition is not a normal condition."

rumble: "So which would you prefer?
1 - have them walk down the street going "I'm Billy, I'm gay, I'm not normal" or
2 - have them just wear some patch, maybe a pink triangle with the word "defective"'

Boy what a ridiculous statement. By your logic, diagnosing someone with a mental disorder is just like calling someone a lunatic or a retard.

I bet you have no problem distinguishing between, say, schizophrenia and a person afflicted with that condition. Why can you not do the same for homosexuality?

Instead, you fuse together the condition to the person, so that evaulating the condition as anything other than normal is an affront to the dignity of the person. How ludicrous.

Or do you call a person with a disability a "cripple"?

GTH
Profile Pic
kiatoindos
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:2,253
Points:552,735
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: May 27, 2013 10:37:32 PM

I don't think the kids even know what their preferences are at that age as for leaders hell no! So much for eagle scout now sparrow scout!
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,103
Points:565,925
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: May 27, 2013 9:56:07 PM

"Of course, religion is not what this topic is about."

Better tell that to no1doc...

"How does allowing a gay boy to play with, interact with, and learn with, his friends, other boys, boys he may know from school, church, sports, etc, actually promote a "non-normative version of manhood"?"

Boom. There are still people out there who believe in racism and are against inter-racial couples. Unfortunately they have the right to voice their opinion and have access to the Internet...
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,455
Points:3,837,565
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: May 27, 2013 8:13:04 PM

How does allowing a gay boy to play with, interact with, and learn with, his friends, other boys, boys he may know from school, church, sports, etc, actually promote a "non-normative version of manhood"?
Or perhaps you would prefer gay boys be banned from having straight friends, from school, church, and sports, any place a straight boy might come into contact with them?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~```````
"calling themselves "homosexuals" without also acknowledging that such condition is not a normal condition."

So which would you prefer?
1 - have them walk down the street going "I'm Billy, I'm gay, I'm not normal"
or
2 - have them just wear some patch, maybe a pink triangle with the word "defective"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~```````
It is the people who refuse to accept people who are a little different from themselves for what they are that are increasingly becoming the "non-normative" in society, and you fit that description.
There is no logical or scientific reason for your attitude. You can't catch the "gay gene". You, as a straight person, don't have to engage in gay sex. You, as a straight person, don't have to marry somebody of the same sex.
You don't even have to accept gays as equal, ever. However, active discrimination is another thing altogether. You either believe in human rights for everybody, including those you don't like, or you don't believe in human rights for everybody.

[Edited by: rumbleseat at 5/27/2013 8:21:33 PM EST]
Profile Pic
KatmanDo
Champion Author Detroit

Posts:15,537
Points:3,243,010
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: May 27, 2013 5:39:08 PM

"I hope you don't labor under the mistaken impression that you have the "right" never to be exposed to the religious beliefs of others."

I do. I hope you don't labor under the mistaken impression that you have the right never to be exposed to the sexual orientation of those different than yourself.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,402
Points:2,568,160
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 27, 2013 10:18:26 AM

"That's the way I feel about religion and other forms of the occult. If you choose to believe in the supernatural, that's your prerogative. But kindly restrict it to times when you know that everyone around you shares your values."

I hope you don't labor under the mistaken impression that you have the "right" never to be exposed to the religious beliefs of others.

Of course, religion is not what this topic is about.

GTH
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,402
Points:2,568,160
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 27, 2013 10:16:44 AM

BabeTruth 'If you had said "Any modification to the BSA's policy should have made it clear that (blindness, paraplegia, or leukemia or many other conditions) is not a normal part of manhood and not to be accepted as such." it would most definitely be seen as a statement of intolerance and discrimination. '

GTH: “Red herring, since those conditions neither impact manhood nor tempt those who have them to non-normative acts.”

BT: "Of course not, if you define manhood as being heterosexual."

Bingo.

"But with the exception of having intercourse with members of the opposite sex (which is against BSA rules and therefore irrelevant) there is nothing about being a man that heterosexuals do in the BSA that homosexuals don't do also."

Except promote a non-normative version of manhood, by in any way proclaiming that homosexuality is normal, which is as simple as calling themselves "homosexuals" without also acknowledging that such condition is not a normal condition.

"So what IS your definition of “manhood” then gas_too_high?"

An important part of either manhood or womanhood is properly relating (and I'm not referring to sexually, but the whole gamut of interpersonal relations) to the opposite gender as well as one's own gender. Homosexual behavior inverts those relationships.

"You have never proved that homosexuality is a freely chosen behavior."

So when one either commits homosexual acts, identifies as homosexual and proclaims that to others, that's not a choice? Is there hypnosis, mental illness or something else involved?

Conscious actions are by there very nature freely chosen unless proven otherwise, which you have not done. All you have done is confuse those actions with same-sex attraction, as is:

"You've never even said that you chose your own sexual orientation."

which is one of your problems -- you cannot or won't separate the condition from the action, or separate the person from the condition.

Or recognize that a normative orientation is not on the same level as a non-normative one.

And I bet you will respond, not directly, but with another round of quibbling and accusations that evade those issues.

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 5/27/2013 10:19:35 AM EST]
Profile Pic
KatmanDo
Champion Author Detroit

Posts:15,537
Points:3,243,010
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: May 26, 2013 11:54:02 PM

"I have no problem with any choices people make I don't like it rubbed in my face"

That's the way I feel about religion and other forms of the occult. If you choose to believe in the supernatural, that's your prerogative. But kindly restrict it to times when you know that everyone around you shares your values. Don't put me in the awkward position of having to pretend that your beliefs are as valid as the laws of physics. My sign is none of your business and I don't care to know yours.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,455
Points:3,837,565
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: May 26, 2013 10:32:37 PM

"I have no problem with any choices people make I don't like it rubbed in my face everyone has a right to be who they are but when's the last time you heard of a straight pride parade?"

There would never have been a Gay Pride Parade had gays not been pushed around, assaulted, even killed, discriminated against by the military, employers, law enforcement, and, of course, gangs of violent gay bashers. That being said, pretty much every Christmas parade, Thanksgiving parade, etc was basically a straight parade, you just didn't think about gays so long as they hid in the shadows.

"Just do your thing you don't have to flaunt it!"

And why haven't you said that to straights? You don't think the Fonz character flaunted it? How about the show Two And A Half Men? How about 90% of the shows not aimed at children filmed in the last couple of decades where being straight and getting the woman was flaunted by the male characters?

Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,402
Points:2,568,160
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 26, 2013 9:41:07 PM

no1doc: "all consistently send a "gay' affirming message."

rumble: "You mistake a message that it is okay to be who you are with a recruiting message."

No, you mistake a condition, and freely chosen actions motivated by that condition, as "who you are."

BT: "After same-sex marriage is legal and homosexuals get all the rights that heterosexuals do, the pride parades will probably die out gradually."

Since those you call "homosexuals" already have the same rights anyone else does, and are seeking special privileges to remake society to redefine their actions as "normal," I see no reason that "gay rights" will go away, at least not until everyone agrees that their non-normative actions are "normal." That will require destroying all religious bodies that disagree, among other things.

GTH
Profile Pic
kiatoindos
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:2,253
Points:552,735
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: May 26, 2013 4:56:42 PM

By the way for all the libs that want health care education socialism like Europe mandatory military service is required oh don't like that do ya
Profile Pic
kiatoindos
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:2,253
Points:552,735
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: May 26, 2013 4:51:41 PM

I'm a firm believer that every person is equal where I come from everyone is green history months parades if all equal then act that way!
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,387
Points:792,675
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: May 26, 2013 4:23:53 PM

kiatoindos “when's the last time you heard of a straight pride parade?”

Since most people assume others are straight unless told otherwise, and straight people aren't discriminated against for being straight, there's no reason to have a straight parade. Unless perhaps you think that having Mrs. Claus up there on the sleigh with Santa Claus, or the local beauty queen up there in a fairy princess dress a kind of “straight parade”?

After same-sex marriage is legal and homosexuals get all the rights that heterosexuals do, the pride parades will probably die out gradually. The same way that civil rights marches aren't a big thing any more.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,387
Points:792,675
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: May 26, 2013 4:18:54 PM

rumbleseat “Accepting gay characters in tv and movies is no different from what transpired when more coloured and hispanic characters were added to a mix that was predominatly white, especially on tv. How many blacks were in Leave It To Beaver or Father Knows Best? Then look at shows like Barney Miller.”

I remember way back when Star Trek first aired there was a huge gasp that Nichelle Nichols was cast for the part of Lt. Nyota Uhura. How could they possibly have an African-American in a role as a person of authority! That was more shocking to people than the fact it was a woman as an officer.

Then later on it made front page news when she and William Shatner as James T. Kirk kissed her, the first interracial case on prime time TV. It didn't matter that the script called for the kiss to be forced against their will, it was shocking.

It was also a big deal when Sidney Poitier was the star of “To Sir With Love”, another black man in a position of authority over children no less.

Did those shows recruit people to become black? Of course not, if you born that way, you stayed that way. Just like your sexual orientation.

Did those shows make is seem like it was ok to be black? Of course they did. It showed that people could be accepted for who they are, not because of the color of their skin. Just like eventually it will become acceptable to be gay.

But it won't people want to become gay if they aren't already that way. Just like people don't want to become black (or Romulan) if they aren't already that way.
Profile Pic
kiatoindos
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:2,253
Points:552,735
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: May 26, 2013 3:57:32 PM

Just do your thing you don't have to flaunt it!
Profile Pic
kiatoindos
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:2,253
Points:552,735
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: May 26, 2013 3:43:00 PM

I have no problem with any choices people make I don't like it rubbed in my face everyone has a right to be who they are but when's the last time you heard of a straight pride parade?
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,455
Points:3,837,565
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: May 26, 2013 3:16:09 PM

"all consistently send a "gay' affirming message."

You mistake a message that it is okay to be who you are with a recruiting message.
Accepting gay characters in tv and movies is no different from what transpired when more coloured and hispanic characters were added to a mix that was predominatly white, especially on tv. How many blacks were in Leave It To Beaver or Father Knows Best? Then look at shows like Barney Miller.
There is no way accepting the odd gay character on tv or in the movies, and, realistically, they are way in the minority, increases the number of gays in the world, although it may make some more comfortable with letting the world know they are gay.
There is no "gay agenda" to recruit more gays.

"I can see it now the new scout leader pulls up in a minivan covered with rainbow sticker and ribbons"
Rantings of a paranoid mind, or perhaps, add a peace sign and call it delusions left over from images of hippie love vans.
Profile Pic
no1doc
Champion Author Milwaukee

Posts:29,172
Points:2,421,055
Joined:Oct 2007
Message Posted: May 26, 2013 2:54:04 PM

Looks like we're not using the phrase "sexualizing kids" in the same way.

"If culture and media was what was causing sexual orientation, as you have proposed, then there would be no homosexuals."
......

If they were the cause, I'd expect there to be more rather than no homosexuals. GLSEN school groups, lesbian chic on college campuses, television and movies, all consistently send a "gay' affirming message. Now the BSA has joined the club.




[Edited by: no1doc at 5/26/2013 2:55:32 PM EST]
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,387
Points:792,675
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: May 26, 2013 9:38:54 AM

no1doc "You may want to reconsider that position. I suspect you're not a grandpa."

Nope.

At 2 years of age, kids aren't aware of the fashion of what they're wearing. Their clothes are whatever their parents get for them.

But even then, you're talking about now. I've seen pictures of kids from the pre-WWI, and little boys and girls both wore clothes that to our eyes look feminine. I don't know for sure, but I suspect the reason was that it was easier to change diapers if a toddler wore something skirtlike instead of pants.

And yet, while most people grew up heterosexual 100 years ago, there were still homosexuals then too.

I don't remember back to when I was 2, but I DO remember that I knew I was heterosexual when I was 6. So did all the girls in the neighborhood.

You are correct that I'm not a grandparent, but my current girlfriend IS a grandparent. I may not be as young as you think I am.

Profile Pic
no1doc
Champion Author Milwaukee

Posts:29,172
Points:2,421,055
Joined:Oct 2007
Message Posted: May 26, 2013 9:23:23 AM

"I very much doubt that culture and media has had any chance of sexualizing kids at the youngest age."
..........
You may want to reconsider that position. I suspect you're not a grandpa.
My daughters have to go out of their way to find modest clothes for our granddaughters. That wasn't the case thirty years ago. Today we have miniskirts for babies and thongs for three year olds. Pull up some of the images of Jon Benet Ramsey. In some she's dressed like a fan dancer. Child internet porn is a cottage industry today.
Profile Pic
kiatoindos
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:2,253
Points:552,735
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: May 26, 2013 8:47:46 AM

Great I can see it now the new scout leader pulls up in a minivan covered with rainbow sticker and ribbons equal signs rainbow Obama stickers ribbons on the antenna rolling billboard that would go over well! !!
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,387
Points:792,675
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: May 26, 2013 7:17:54 AM

gas_too_high “That the question was even asked was due to pressure from corporate donors. The BSA had already taken their policy to the Supreme Court.”

Going to court was the actions of a few of the top people in the BSA, not the decision of the majority. When they got a quorum of leader delegates together, the majority decided in favor or allowing homosexuals.

BabeTruth "I don't know where you get the idea that kids are "too young to be aware of such a condition". When I was a kid I knew lots of kids who were definitely hetero before they were 10."

“That's assuming those kids were even aware of their sexuality at age 10 instead of being influenced by the culture and media, which sexualizes kids way before puberty.”

Sexual behavior has been observed in children as young as 2.

Normative Sexual Behavior in Children

Age of sexual behavior

“An examination of Fig 1 suggests that 2-year-old children are observed to be relatively sexual (compared with 10- to 12-year-olds) and children become increasingly sexual up to age 5, when the item mean drops for both genders. Another drop occurs after age 9, although 11-year-old girls show a slight rise in sexual behavior, primarily coming from an increased interest in the opposite sex”

I very much doubt that culture and media has had any chance of sexualizing kids at the youngest age. If culture and media was what was causing sexual orientation, as you have proposed, then there would be no homosexuals.

BabeTruth "As has been proved to you before, homosexuality IS natural (unless of course you wish to redefine the word "natural", thus proving yet again that you know virtually nothing of biology)."

“You haven't "proven" a thing. You haven't overcome the evidence from anatomical design, however you try to explain it away. You don't now what you think you know.”

Sure we have. Your problem is that you rely solely on anatomy to make your conclusion. Nature itself is the determinate of what's natural and homosexuality has been observed in many species of insects, amphibians and birds and almost all species of mammals. If there are that many species of animals that have homosexuals, then it IS “natural”.

To be natural doesn't mean that it's the majority, as you seem to imagine.

IOW, YOU don't know what you think you know. You're not a biologist.

“Whatever facts you might have, you are not properly interpreting them ..”

How else would you interpret homosexuality being observed in almost all species of mammals to mean anything other than that it's natural. Do you think animals in the wild are being influenced by “culture and the media”? LOL Do you think animals in the wild are suffering sexual abuse by their parents?

BabeTruth "And as has been proved to you many times before, just because something is not "normal" doesn't mean that it can be discriminated against."

“Still confusing the person with the condition. Evaluating the condition does not discriminate against the person.”

No, but barring them from membership in groups BECAUSE of their “condition” discriminates. Even labelling it as a “condition” is a form of discrimination.

BabeTruth 'If you had said "Any modification to the BSA's policy should have made it clear that (blindness, paraplegia, or leukemia or many other conditions) is not a normal part of manhood and not to be accepted as such." it would most definitely be seen as a statement of intolerance and discrimination. '

“Red herring, since those conditions neither impact manhood nor tempt those who have them to non-normative acts.”

Of course not, if you define manhood as being heterosexual. But with the exception of having intercourse with members of the opposite sex (which is against BSA rules and therefore irrelevant) there is nothing about being a man that heterosexuals do in the BSA that homosexuals don't do also.

So what IS your definition of “manhood” then gas_too_high? What is it that you think disqualifies homosexual boys?

“That's another error you persist in, confusing a condition with freely chosen behavior.”

You have never proved that homosexuality is a freely chosen behavior. You've never even said that you chose your own sexual orientation.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,402
Points:2,568,160
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 25, 2013 3:15:28 PM

"It hardly sounds like the Boy Scout "caved". Of the 1,400 delegates at their meeting, 68% of them were in favor of the change."

That the question was even asked was due to pressure from corporate donors. The BSA had already taken their policy to the Supreme Court.

"I don't know where you get the idea that kids are "too young to be aware of such a condition". When I was a kid I knew lots of kids who were definitely hetero before they were 10."

That's assuming those kids were even aware of their sexuality at age 10 instead of being influenced by the culture and media, which sexualizes kids way before puberty. Even so, you make the error of equating a normative condition, with a non-normative one. That's an apples-to-oranges comparison.

"As has been proved to you before, homosexuality IS natural (unless of course you wish to redefine the word "natural", thus proving yet again that you know virtually nothing of biology)."

You haven't "proven" a thing. You haven't overcome the evidence from anatomical design, however you try to explain it away. You don't now what you think you know. Whatever facts you might have, you are not properly interpreting them, just as scientists formerly "knew" that blacks were inferior.

"And as has been proved to you many times before, just because something is not "normal" doesn't mean that it can be discriminated against."

Still confusing the person with the condition. Evaluating the condition does not discriminate against the person.

'If you had said "Any modification to the BSA's policy should have made it clear that (blindness, paraplegia, or leukemia or many other conditions) is not a normal part of manhood and not to be accepted as such." it would most definitely be seen as a statement of intolerance and discrimination. '

Red herring, since those conditions neither impact manhood nor tempt those who have them to non-normative acts. That's another error you persist in, confusing a condition with freely chosen behavior.

GTH
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,387
Points:792,675
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: May 25, 2013 7:34:50 AM

It hardly sounds like the Boy Scout "caved". Of the 1,400 delegates at their meeting, 68% of them were in favor of the change.

I don't know where you get the idea that kids are "too young to be aware of such a condition". When I was a kid I knew lots of kids who were definitely hetero before they were 10.

As has been proved to you before, homosexuality IS natural (unless of course you wish to redefine the word "natural", thus proving yet again that you know virtually nothing of biology).

And as has been proved to you many times before, just because something is not "normal" doesn't mean that it can be discriminated against. Being blind, or having a medical condition people should still be treated with equality.

If you had said "Any modification to the BSA's policy should have made it clear that (blindness, paraplegia, or leukemia or many other conditions) is not a normal part of manhood and not to be accepted as such." it would most definitely be seen as a statement of intolerance and discrimination.

And yet you contend that the "condition" of homosexuality should be treated differently.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,455
Points:3,837,565
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: May 24, 2013 11:19:01 PM

"Any modification to the BSA's policy should have made it clear that homosexuality is not a normal part of manhood and not to be accepted as such."

In other words, you want them to say something along the lines of "look we might have to let you in even though you are homosexual, but don't you dare admit to it, because us heterosexuals don't like it".
You actually would prefer the Boy Scouts adopt the stupid "don't ask, don't tell" policy that the military has dropped?
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,402
Points:2,568,160
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 24, 2013 10:12:54 PM

'The Boy Scouts will now allow troops and packs with chartering organizations that approve to admit openly gay scouts."

Too bad the BSA caved.

As I said, I don't really have a problem with admitting youth who claim a same-sex attraction (although most boys are too young to really be aware of such a condition). But proclaiming oneself to be "gay" or homosexual is generally a statement that homosexuality is normal and natural.

Any modification to the BSA's policy should have made it clear that homosexuality is not a normal part of manhood and not to be accepted as such. In failing to do so, the BSA caved.

GTH
Profile Pic
worryfree
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:27,417
Points:2,452,830
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: May 24, 2013 1:25:29 PM

Any gay scout that turns 18 and wants to continue cannot..Eagle or otherwise.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,103
Points:565,925
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: May 24, 2013 9:10:39 AM

"They voted on the revised policy today. The Boy Scouts will now allow troops and packs with chartering organizations that approve to admit openly gay scouts."

This part of the 'debate' is over.

Too bad that any Scout who is gay that achieves the rank of Eagle Scout won't be welcomed as an adult member though this is probably just a matter of time... Baby steps.

Rome wasn't built in a day.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,387
Points:792,675
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: May 24, 2013 6:46:44 AM

no1doc “Keeping ones private life private is not lying.”

That's not the way it sounds from gas_too_high. He says that SSM would be “living a lie” while he doesn't seem to have any problem with a gay man marrying a woman, even though it wouldn't be a “real marriage” since they wouldn't have intercourse and so wouldn't be able to procreate.

“The BSA states its beliefs clearly and someone who doesn't accept those beliefs has no "right" to be in that organization. The "lie" is pretending you can be a part or, insisting on being part of (any belief system) when you openly oppose those beliefs.”

Hmmm, I don't think so.

From the BSA themselves The Meaning of the Boy Scout Oath

“To do my duty to God . . .
Your family and religious leaders teach you about God and the ways you can serve. You do your duty to God by following the wisdom of those teachings every day and by respecting and defending the rights of others to practice their own beliefs.”

I see nothing in there that says that a Scout can't be gay. Note that it only talks about a “duty to God” and “following the wisdom of those teachings. It doesn't say WHICH god or WHICH teachings. Note that there are denominations of Christianity which have no problem with homosexuality, and Scouting isn't restricted to just Christians anyway.

It goes further to say, “respecting and defending the rights of others to practice their own beliefs”, which unless I'm speaking a different language, means that if a gay boy belongs to a religion that doesn't have a problem with gays, then his beliefs should be respected and defended.

It doesn't say anything about prohibiting them.

The Oath also says: “

and morally straight.
To be a person of strong character, your relationships with others should be honest and open. You should respect and defend the rights of all people. Be clean in your speech and actions, and remain faithful in your religious beliefs. The values you practice as a Scout will help you shape a life of virtue and self-reliance.”

So, to “respect and defend the rights of all people” doesn't suggest to me that they should discriminate against homosexuals. Exactly the opposite.

The BSA Oath says “Being morally straight means to live your life with honesty, to be clean in your speech and actions, and to be a person of strong character.”

Again, nothing about sexual orientation. There's not even anything about sex anywhere.

And the results of yesterday's vote says I'm right.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,455
Points:3,837,565
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: May 24, 2013 2:30:43 AM

"you are trying to stifle discussion"

No, it is you who is trying to keep the discussion going, keep the discrimination alive, keep segregating individuals on the basis of something that is not even your business.
It is you who has tried to use scare tactics to keep alive a discussion that is rapidly losing all meaning.
It is you who says they can be equal all they want, just so long as they pretend to be straight to be actually considered equal.
It is you who figures it is fine for them to live a lie, and debased the institution of marriage by marrying people of the opposite sex they have no attraction to. It is that lie that devalues marriage, not a happy, devoted, gay marriage.
It is your irrational fear that allows you to believe BOYS can't be boys in an organization devoted to the development and growth of boys unless they proudly claim to be heterosexual, in an organization that has nothing to do with sex anyway.

The subject is equality, plain and simple, how can any person claiming to be a rational, thinking human being think there is anything new to discuss?
Profile Pic
worryfree
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:27,417
Points:2,452,830
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: May 23, 2013 11:50:09 PM

A giant step for compassion and humanity. Gay prejudice is going down!

Scouting was wrong on this and has fixed it.

[Edited by: worryfree at 5/23/2013 11:53:02 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,777
Points:3,177,075
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: May 23, 2013 11:33:57 PM


gas_too_high, "And, as no1doc says, the "lie" is insisting on being a part of an organization like the Boy Scouts, the values of which you are in fundamental disagreement"

So, are you saying that an atheist has no right to join the Catholic Church and to promote atheism from within the Church?

Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,402
Points:2,568,160
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 23, 2013 10:45:29 PM

"Your attitude is the reason so many gays still live a lie, not wanting to be ostracized by mean-spirited people."

*what* "mean-spirited people"? As usual, you are trying to stifle discussion by tossing around insults (about unspecified people, at that).

And, as no1doc says, the "lie" is insisting on being a part of an organization like the Boy Scouts, the values of which you are in fundamental disagreement.

I might add, the "lie" is pretending a non-normal position is normal and natural. In defending that, you might as well be defending the "right" of an alcoholic to have a drink.

GTH
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,316
Points:3,025,070
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: May 23, 2013 6:46:35 PM

They voted on the revised policy today. The Boy Scouts will now allow troops and packs with chartering organizations that approve to admit openly gay scouts.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,455
Points:3,837,565
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: May 23, 2013 6:45:49 PM

"it's rejecting the "gay banner" that boy insists on proudly waving publicly."

Oh, what baloney. Just because I know you are Italian, or Russian, or Angolan, doesn't mean I think you are flaunting it when you come to a Scout meeting, same thing with homosexuality.
I have know many homosexuals, I have them in my circle of friends, I have worked with them, I have some in my family, none of them has EVER proudly waved a gay flag, any more then I strut around waving a heterosexual flag. Being gay is a simple fact of life, not a vocation, just as being heterosexual is a simple fact of life.
Your attitude is the reason so many gays still live a lie, not wanting to be ostracized by mean-spirited people.

[Edited by: rumbleseat at 5/23/2013 6:47:59 PM EST]
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,387
Points:792,675
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: May 23, 2013 1:30:18 PM

As Weaslespit says, yes, currently just having the attractions DOES disqualify somebody from being a Scout.

Even if a person was a virgin, if they are known to be a homosexual, then they can't be a Scout.

And if they weren't the one who made it public, doesn't matter. They're still disqualified.

Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,103
Points:565,925
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: May 23, 2013 12:56:08 PM

"Nobody chooses to have SSA and simply having such attraction does NOT disqualify any boy (or man) from scouting."

Actually, currently it does... hence the problem.
Profile Pic
no1doc
Champion Author Milwaukee

Posts:29,172
Points:2,421,055
Joined:Oct 2007
Message Posted: May 23, 2013 12:36:47 PM

"So what if the boy didn't say anything but somebody else 'outed' him? Should he be allowed to be a Scout then?"

Outstanding question BT. I hadn't read your question until after posting that last response to Weasel (I'm a slow thinker and writer). It's ironic but, that post serves just as well as an answer to your question.

Nobody chooses to have SSA and simply having such attraction does NOT disqualify any boy (or man) from scouting. Nor should any third party allegation of SSA disqualify that person. But acting on SSA or openly promoting the acceptance of such action is a choice, and is incompatible with the traditional morality Scouting has always stood for.

Profile Pic
no1doc
Champion Author Milwaukee

Posts:29,172
Points:2,421,055
Joined:Oct 2007
Message Posted: May 23, 2013 11:40:05 AM

"Yes! Anybody who wants to belong to a group who restricts its membership should lie to gain entry if being themselves would have them disqualified. Nice!"

Keeping ones private life private is not lying. The BSA states its beliefs clearly and someone who doesn't accept those beliefs has no "right" to be in that organization. The "lie" is pretending you can be a part or, insisting on being part of (any belief system) when you openly oppose those beliefs.

That is the lie.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,387
Points:792,675
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: May 23, 2013 11:29:26 AM

no1doc "The BSA policy excluding openly "gay" scouts isn't rejecting the boy, it's rejecting the "gay banner" that boy insists on proudly waving publicly. If any boy wants to be in scouting, leave the agenda behind."

So what if the boy didn't say anything but somebody else 'outed' him? Should he be allowed to be a Scout then?

After all, it wasn't him "waving publicly".

Topic is locked Back to Topics