yaworski 10 Posted June 12, 2002 Share Posted June 12, 2002 OGE, I read your entire thread on the dangers of Snipe Hunts on the psyches of young men, perhaps you should change your name to Old Grey Haired Woman. To answer your question about "Dedicated Dad," I only use my own name, unlike you and many others here. Link to post Share on other sites
OldGreyEagle 5 Posted June 12, 2002 Share Posted June 12, 2002 Yeah, thats right, I oughta put my real name on here. Then again I re-read the thread on Internet Stalking and figured I wouldn't do that. I guess whether or not you used to be Dedicated Dad or not isn't important. You oughta read the thread on hazing in the open discussion forum. I made a reference to Dedicated Dad and how much I missed him. So if you arent him, you certainly are an able replacement. If you arent Dedicated Dad, listen here, DD was as pasionate a person inhis beleifs as I have ever seen, the problem was his style got in the way of his message. I hope the same doesnt happen to you. Link to post Share on other sites
OldGreyEagle 5 Posted June 12, 2002 Share Posted June 12, 2002 BTW, bigstrohl You and I are on the same side when it comes to gays in Boy Scouts. However, I am not exactly happy you are proud to announce how promiscuous you are. I wouldnt want you to think a lack of response implied approval. Link to post Share on other sites
NJCubScouter 1389 Posted June 12, 2002 Share Posted June 12, 2002 I didn't think yaworski was DedicatedDad. DedicatedDad's writing exhibited more class. Wow. Did I really write that? But I think it's true. Not much more, just more. As far as I am concerned, the writings of people like DedicatedDad and yaworski ultimately advance the cause of change in the policy, by making the pro-policy position look ridiculous. For every one of us who posts on this topic, there are maybe 30, 40 or more people who read the forum regularly but do not post on this subject. Our minds are not going to be changed by reading a post from the "other side," but those of the "silent majority" may be changed. (This message has been edited by NJCubScouter) Link to post Share on other sites
littlebillie 10 Posted June 12, 2002 Share Posted June 12, 2002 "Oh boy, this tired old line. I'm sorry but he was a homosexual. He may have been a pedophile but he was a homosexual pedophile." Actually, perhaps not - in this case, the population of greatest opportunity was boys. this incident may indeed have involved a pedophile with no gender or orientation preference past 'young'. I haven't seen enough facts to make the call... Link to post Share on other sites
littlebillie 10 Posted June 12, 2002 Share Posted June 12, 2002 Gay OR straight - aren't we supposed to be Asexual, pretty much? NOT avowed heteros and not avowed anything else? Single leaders of opposite sex not sharing tents out of wedlock, and all that? Even groping one's spouse, regardless, suppposed to be avoided... and regardless of orientation, there should be no indication of sexuality, should there? The obviously promiscuous straight is a role model to be avoided as much as any? ????? Link to post Share on other sites
Weekender 10 Posted June 12, 2002 Share Posted June 12, 2002 As far as I am concerned, the writings of people like DedicatedDad and yaworski ultimately advance the cause of change in the policy, by making the pro-policy position look ridiculous. For every one of us who posts on this topic, there are maybe 30, 40 or more people who read the forum regularly but do not post on this subject. Our minds are not going to be changed by reading a post from the "other side," but those of the "silent majority" may be changed. Well NJ, We finally have something to agree on. I think others do read these posts and that they may be influenced by our positions and the tone of our posts. (Sorry, but our agreement has to end here) Homosexuality is a sin of self-indulgence and disobedience toward God. It is selfishness in the extreme. It's "I'm going to do what I want because I want to and I don't care if it is right or wrong, moral or immoral, and if you try to tell me I shouldn't then you're a bigot" But I'm glad we can at least agree on the one thing. Link to post Share on other sites
evmori 11 Posted June 12, 2002 Share Posted June 12, 2002 A homosexual is a terrible role model. They go against everything Scouting stands for. The title of this thread is quite accurate - Gay lifestyle. That's all it is a lifestyle. An immoral & very depraived lifestyle, but still a lifestyle. Ed Mori Scoutmaster Troop 1 Link to post Share on other sites
CubsRgr8 10 Posted June 13, 2002 Share Posted June 13, 2002 bigstrohl said: "I know for a fact almost all of my friends, some fellow Eagle Scouts,and myself included, sleep around almost every chance we get." Just what do you do when you recite the words of the Scout oath "morally straight" - cross your fingers? Your attitude towards sexual behavior is flippant - haven't you heard of AIDs? I find your behavior (if indeed this is how you chose to act) abhorrent and I condemn it completely. OGE said: "I am not exactly happy you (bigstrohl) are proud to announce how promiscuous you are." That's it? Not exactly happy? Just what does he have to say to make you unhappy? To condemn his promiscuous behavior as wrong? Would you want him as an ASM in your troop? NJ, tj, and all the other supporters of allowing self-avowed homosexuals in scouting: is this your view as well? I'd have a lot more respect for your arguments if you condemned this promicuous behavior here and now. Link to post Share on other sites
OldGreyEagle 5 Posted June 13, 2002 Share Posted June 13, 2002 Cubs, You are right, I should have been more straightforward in my post. In my area saying you are "not exactly happy" means you are exceedingly upset with that person, mark it down as a misused Colloquialiam. Bigstrohl, I condemn your sexual behavior (This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle) Link to post Share on other sites
sctmom 11 Posted June 13, 2002 Share Posted June 13, 2002 Cubsrgr, I'll be the first to step up to the plate. I do not agree with the BSA non-gay policy. I was aghast to read bigstrohl's comment. This proves the point of being heterosexual does not make one a "good rolemodel". Like you, I wondered does he worry about aids and other disease's? What about his attitude toward women? Sure some women sleep around, but that is no excuse to think it is okay to sleep around. A Scout is clean -- in body and thoughts. A Scout is trustworthy -- does Bigstrohl tell these "partners" he sleeps around? Bigstrohl seems to think this is "the norm" and perfectly okay. I stongly believe what a person does in their personal live is their own business but it this man's flippant attitude really bothers me. How many of his dates think he has been "courteous"? How far does this flippant attitude toward sex and women go? How does he act around the scouts when a woman walks by or he catches them talking about somebody's sister? As my son begins to find out about people who sleep around, I plan to explain to him the danger they put themselves in -- physically and emotionally. Yes, it is their choice, but a choice that cannot be made as a teenager and a serious choice as an adult. I have good friends who sleep around with the opposite gender. I don't agree with their choice and I tell them so. I trust them around my kid but not to tell him about relationships. It is my belief and understanding that people who sleep around have some serious personal issues -- about love, being needed, personal satisfaction, etc. Link to post Share on other sites
Rooster7 11 Posted June 13, 2002 Share Posted June 13, 2002 I understand the condemnation and the concern about sexually transmitted diseases. However, what bothers me more is the lack of concern or thought in regard to the sacredness of the act itself, not just by bigstrohl but apparently many others as well. So many are quick to say, "Doesn't he think about AIDS?" Few say, "Doesn't he care that sex is a sacred act that should be shared between a husband and wife?" Yes, he should be concerned that he does not spread a deadly disease. But what if this disease (and others) did not exist? Are you implying that he would be acting morally? I hope not. Morally straight? To me, the greater issue is - "Are you behaving in manner that God would approve?" Examine your heartare you doing the right thing? Despite some people's claims, the spiritual aspects in life are more important than the physical. The treasure we strive for is not here, but in heaven. Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But tore up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. - Matthew 6:20-23 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church--for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." - Ephesians 5:25-31 I realize that not every poster is a Christian. Nevertheless, Christianity shares principles with many different religions. The concept of sex being a sacred act between a husband and wife is not foreign to other faiths. Before TJ or someone else jumps in and claims that there are Christian denominations that teach otherwise. Ask yourselves when and how these denominations popped up. They weren't around (at least not in large numbers) before the previous century. Did they come to be as the result of prayer, biblical study, and new credible interpretations of the bible? Or, were they the result of lust, popular culture, and wishful interpretation? I propose it was the latter. Link to post Share on other sites
Rooster7 11 Posted June 13, 2002 Share Posted June 13, 2002 Via an email from DD to me: BTW this yaworski guy is not me, I don't name call. I'm still locked out even though my profile says "new member". He went on to further explain, If name-calling is accurately describing ones behavior then Im guilty, but I took great care not to gratuitously name-call... He did NOT ask me to post his thoughts (although I did get his permission). I will refrain from doing so in the future, but since his name was being "thrown around" I thought it was appropriate. Link to post Share on other sites
evmori 11 Posted June 14, 2002 Share Posted June 14, 2002 Rooster7, Excellent post! Praise the Lord! sctmom, You stated you disagree with the BSA policy on homosexuals. Interesting. Would you let your son go camoing with a homosexual Scoutmaster? What if your son came home after a couple camping trips with a homosexual Scoutmaster & told you he thinks he is gay? How would you handle that? I for one applaud the BSA in their stance against homosexuals. In no way are they discriminating. The BSA is just exercising it's right of freedom of association allowed by the Constitution. I feel if homosexuals were allowed to be members of the BSA, the whole organization would crumble. People who support the BSA allowing homosexuals are quick to mention the BSA is not changing with the times. Well, there are times change is good and there are times change is bad. Staying the course on the high moral road is the way the BSA decided to go. And I for one am thankful. Ed Mori Scoutmaster Troop 1 Link to post Share on other sites
littlebillie 10 Posted June 15, 2002 Share Posted June 15, 2002 when I see this kind of comment - " ...In no way are they discriminating. The BSA is just xercising it's right of freedom of association allowed by the Constitution." the first thing that jumps to mind is that under these guidelines, the KKK does not discriminate either. Nor did the Rotary. Actually, the truth is that this is discrimination - check the dictionary - but it is a legal discrimination, for reasons that the group feels justify it. Describing this any other way misstates what is happening, on both sides... Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now