Gay rights vs. religious beliefs

[BrentAllen 10]

packsaddle,

Douglas Smith posed no risk whatsoever to the boys in Scouting, in his administrative position. Are you arguing he should have been allowed to remain in Scouting?

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

BrentAllen lies:

You are going to argue that McGreevey wanted to be MARRIED so badly, that he was willing to marry a woman, even though he didn't love her.

 

No, I didn't say that at all; in fact, I pointed out that people "defending" marriage by denying it to gays (and pointing out that "gays can still get married") are encouraging sham marriages.

 

packsaddle,

Douglas Smith posed no risk whatsoever to the boys in Scouting, in his administrative position. Are you arguing he should have been allowed to remain in Scouting?

 

He collected and redistributed child pornography; I (and I assume packsaddle) have no problem with kicking him out for that. Or would it be OK with you if he stayed on if only girls were in the pictures?

 

Now, why was Dennis St. Jean kicked out (by Douglas Smith, no less)? He was general manager of Sea Base in Florida for the BSA. Are you arguing that he should not be allowed to remain in scouting?

[BrentAllen 10]

Merlyn,

Excuse me, but what a load of crap!

 

Defending marriage forces gays in to sham marriages?!?!

 

What law says anyone must get married??

 

My observation is gays enter into sham marriages to hide their homosexuality. If gays were allowed to marry, you are saying all those hiding in sham marriage would suddenly come out of the closet?? You've got to be kidding!

 

As for Douglas Smith, I want to know what packsaddle would have done if he had somehow found the pictures on Smith's computer. Since Smith wasn't involved with boys, and therefore wasn't a threat to them, what would he have done? Turn Smith in, or look the other way? packsaddle has admitted he chooses his own judgement over the governing rules - would he have done the same with Smith? Would he not mind knowing there were pedophiles in Scouting, and just said "tough luck?"(This message has been edited by BrentAllen)

[evmori 11]

I pointed out that people "defending" marriage by denying it to gays (and pointing out that "gays can still get married") are encouraging sham marriages.

 

You actually believe that, Merlyn? That is the dumbest statement I ever heard! You might as well say single people buy pets so they feel loved!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[LongHaul 10]

GernBlansten, first let me apologize for misspelling your name a few pages back. Being able to scientifically prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuals dont have any choice in the matter will not change a thing. Its not why they do it its what they do that is the problem. As a child I was taught that homosexuality was a sickness, a perversion, I learned that this might not be true along with many other concepts and ideas. Today I really dont care what a persons sexual orientation is. Ill take help from anyone in doing my AYSO stuff, or Little League stuff or Civic Association stuff but when I put on my Scout uniform I have to follow the rules I agreed to follow when I signed up. I resent those who try to force their positions on me but are unwilling to accept my position. Im not telling anyone they cant be gay, Im not telling them that they are wrong, or sick, or unwelcome in my home. I will tell them that they are not welcome in SEVERAL of the groups I belong to, one being the Boy Scouts. About 1/3 of my troop is Black and no one, including me, has any problem with that. I still believe that White people who dont want to live with Black people should be able to exercise that preference just as I exercise my preference to open my self up to any individual regardless of color. Its my choice not something Im forced to do under threat of retribution or loss of privilege. I would be far more inclined to join the voice to have BSA change its current stand if BSA wasnt under attack over it. Ill give you the shirt off my back but dont try and steal it.

LongHaul

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

BrentAllen writes:

Defending marriage forces gays in to sham marriages?!?!

 

No; "defending" marriage by saying that gays can already marry (but only someone of the opposite sex) suggests that such sham marriages are just fine with those "defenders of marriage".

 

What law says anyone must get married??

 

None, of course. But I haven't said that.

 

And I still can't see how denying marriage to gays is "defending" marriage in any way. Are Massachusettes marriages somehow "lesser" now?

 

My observation is gays enter into sham marriages to hide their homosexuality.

 

Many probably do. In the McGreevey case, he probably felt that as a politician, being married would improve his chances at getting elected.

 

If gays were allowed to marry, you are saying all those hiding in sham marriage would suddenly come out of the closet?? You've got to be kidding!

 

I'm not saying that at all; it seems to be your reading comprehension that's the problem.

 

Ed writes:

You actually believe that, Merlyn?

 

Ed, if someone who's gay wants to get married, and a "defender" of marriage says they CAN marry, just someone of the opposite sex, yes, they are suggesting that gays enter into such sham marriages. They're saying that gays CAN marry, they just have to marry someone they have no sexual attraction towards.

[BrentAllen 10]

My comprehension skills are fine. Your arguments just don't make any sense.

 

"...if James McGreevey could have married a man in a society that accepts gay marriage, he wouldn't have entered into a sham marriage with her..."

"I pointed out that people "defending" marriage by denying it to gays (and pointing out that "gays can still get married") are encouraging sham marriages."

 

How, exactly, are we encouraging sham marriages? There was no reason for McGreevey to ever get married. How did we encourage him to marry? Specifically? Why couldn't he have just stayed single? Why did he decide to marry a woman he didn't love (twice!) in a sham marriage, instead of just staying single? Somehow, this is the fault of those defending traditional marriage?

 

"In the McGreevey case, he probably felt that as a politician, being married would improve his chances at getting elected."

 

You mean in liberal, open-minded, free-thinking New Jersey, the voters would prefer a married heterosexual over a single gay man - all other issues being the same? Wow!

 

After all this, I have a new reason why gays shouldn't be in Scouting - they aren't honest! They aren't honest with themselves (in the closet) or with others (sham marriages, getting married just to get elected to office). Thanks for pointing that out, Merlyn.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

BrentAllen writes:

My comprehension skills are fine. Your arguments just don't make any sense

 

No, your reading comprehension is faulty. You keep incorrectly reiterating what you think I've said, when I haven't said it.

 

How, exactly, are we encouraging sham marriages? There was no reason for McGreevey to ever get married

 

Sure there is; he's a politician. Being a "family man" gets votes.

 

How did we encourage him to marry? Specifically?

 

There's your reading comprehension problem again. I did not say you are encouraging him to marry.

 

Why couldn't he have just stayed single? Why did he decide to marry a woman he didn't love (twice!) in a sham marriage, instead of just staying single? Somehow, this is the fault of those defending traditional marriage?

 

No, but if you could read what I write, you'd already know.

 

You mean in liberal, open-minded, free-thinking New Jersey, the voters would prefer a married heterosexual over a single gay man - all other issues being the same? Wow!

 

Again, your reading problem rears its head. I only said that McGreevey probably felt that being married would improve his chances. Notice that I didn't make any statement on whether he was "out" or not, so the difference is just between being married and being single.

 

After all this, I have a new reason why gays shouldn't be in Scouting - they aren't honest!

 

Judging an entire class of people for the actions of some, eh? Textbook example of prejudice.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[packsaddle 753]

I try to judge people on the basis of their individual merit and not as a class. The individuals I am aware of who happen to be gay leaders - are good leaders and pose absolutely no risk to the boys. The rules say absolutely nothing about responsibility to turn in other persons if they have not committed a crime. I comply with the regs, others can choose to or not. The official membership police can take whatever action they want, or more likely not.

 

That said, BSA is obviously not serious about the gay leader issue, they just keep one faction of BSA happy by booting someone once in a while if that person is 'outed' in some way, but as long as the appearance is right (don't ask, don't tell), they're OK with it. It is a logical inevitability for their policy. Like I said, tough luck. Yesterday's news.

[BrentAllen 10]

Merlyn can tap dance with the best of them!

 

"I pointed out that people "defending" marriage by denying it to gays (and pointing out that "gays can still get married") are encouraging sham marriages."

 

"Sure there is; he's a politician. Being a "family man" gets votes."

 

Sounds to me like society in general is encouraging sham marriages, not just those defending traditional marriage. True?

 

packsaddle writes: "The individuals I am aware of who happen to be gay leaders - are good leaders..." I guess they just ignore the first part of the Scout Law - the one about being trustworthy? And the Scout Oath? Yeah, those are the kind of "good" leaders I want for my son.

Were my questions about Douglas Smith too difficult for you?

[DanKroh 11]

"First you admit that you, and apparently the APA, cant separate the fantasy from the act so not only is it illegal to do it its illegal to fantasize about it!"

 

Well, actually, first, I never said anything about the illegality of pedophilia. I talked about it as a medical condition.

 

"In the second part you say the condition is considered detrimental because it interferes with the persons ability to form healthy relationships with other adults. Kind of like homosexuality in the 50s huh?"

 

Um, no. Pedophiles cannot form healthy relationships (and no, that doesn't just mean sexual relationships, even friendships are problematic) not because of the judgements of others, but because of an internal conflict within themselves. Homosexuals have no difficulty forming healthy relationships with other adults (sexual or otherwise). Other adults may have a problem with a person's homosexuality, but that's not the same thing.

 

"If we accept pedophilia as a condition and stop stigmatizing it they wont have to hide it and then the social problem will go away."

 

Again, no. The problems pedophiles have are internal conflicts, not from societal pressure.

 

"We can start treating them alike drug users who cant relate or alcoholics who can't form relationships or any of the other thousand people with diminished social skills, but when you say relationship you really mean sexual relationship with other adults."

 

No, mistaken again. See above.

 

"Again its because she was taught cetain things were wrong not because she felt it all on her own. What was happening to her had been stigmatized by society just as homosexuality had been. How many young children were traumatized because they had feelings for members of the same sex and society told them it was wrong? Where is the difference?"

 

Yes, many young people, mostly teenagers, are affected by society's (and in some cases, their families') rejection of them for their homosexuality. I'm not sure how that relates to the sexualization of prepubescent children for child pornography. Can you elucidate?

 

"When we embrace pedophilia as an alternate lifestyle and stop traumatizing children with old fashioned stereotypes the pain and suffering will end."

 

No, it won't. Just like if we accept schizophrenia, it won't suddenly make the schizophrenic all better and able to function in society. Pedophiles have an inherent, internal conflict. How society views it is not going to affect that at all.

 

"You will argue for gays and against pedophiles and use the same arguments "they" used agaist gays but not see the error becasue you don't accept pedophilia as being acceptable even if it is not a choice."

 

Pedophilia is not a choice. Period. No if about it. Anymore than saying a schizophrenic chooses to be schizophrenic or depressive chooses to be depressed. I think it's pretty clear that you don't understand the psychology of pedophilia, but are rather invoking the "pedophilia is like homosexuality" simply for the visceral reaction that it evokes.

 

"Well there are many people who still don't feel being gay is acceptable either. They feel gays can't form healthy relationships with other adults."

 

Actually, they can. They can form healthy relationships with other adults. They can also form healthy sexual relationships with other adults, those adults just happen to be of the same sex.

 

"I wonder how the APA defined homosexuality back in the 50's?"

 

Actually, until the mid 1970's, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder by the APA. I make no pretense of hiding that fact. And if we go back 50 years before that, most mental disorders were thought to be demonic possession. But as we gain a better understanding of the mind, we learn. We change. And we make corrections to the way we look at mental and physical health.

 

Your entire premise seems to be based on the idea that being accepted by society will make the pedophile's internal conflict go away. It won't. The pedophile will always have abnormal relationships with adults, even if the other adults are willing to be completely accepting of the pedophile's "orientation".

 

The second part of your faulty premise is that homosexual relationships are not healthy. Since there is no evidence in the mental health field to support that assertion, then the argument based on that premise kinda crumbles under it's own weight.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[packsaddle 753]

He was a criminal. I thought that Merlyn had already informed you of that. Sorry. I think criminals should not be leaders. Seems obvious.

 

As for the parts of the law and oath that usually are NOT invoked in this issue, these leaders are trustworthy. At least they have been with me. Is there something on the application that asks for the applicant's sexual preference? No? Then how would being gay make them untrustworthy?

 

I suggest that you satisfy your urges by attempting to remove someone in your sphere of influence on the basis of 'untrustworthy'. Find someone who cheats on his wife, or his taxes. See if you can get them removed for that infraction. But apply your standard evenly and across the board, not selectively, only to those you don't like for some other reason. Enjoy. Are you going to ignore 'helpful' or 'friendly' or the others? Just wondering.

I'll be interested in monitoring your success.

 

[BrentAllen 10]

packsaddle,

Do you drive a Dodge?

I didn't ask if he was a criminal - I asked what you would do if you found the pictures on his computer? Would you turn him in? He wasn't a threat to the boys, he wasn't anywhere near them.

 

Those gay leaders can't even be honest with themselves. How can they expect others to be honest with them? I don't expect you to turn them in - I expect them to do the honorable thing and get out of Scouting.

Are gays allowed in Scouting? No. Do they know this? Yes.

 

If a Scout steals a knife and is never asked about it, does that make him any less dishonest or untrustworthy? A gay man knows gays are not allowed in the program but joins anyway. Yes, that makes him dishonest in my book.

[packsaddle 753]

Not sure what the reference is to a really awful car. I must have missed something.

Brent, actually you asked me, "Are you arguing he should have been allowed to remain in Scouting?" I hadn't argued about him at all. No need. He was caught in criminal conduct. And I already told you I thought criminals should not be leaders. What car do you drive?

Anyway, to answer your second question, if I see ANYONE with kiddie porn on their computer, I call law enforcement. Is this really so complicated? However, this has never happened and I think it is unlikely to happen. So, would you report someone if you know they cheat on their taxes?

 

I'm not sure why you're going off on this. You say you don't expect ME to turn them in. So why are you ranting to me about it. YOU can't do anything about it. You don't expect ME to do anything about it. Nothing is going to be done about it.

You say gay leaders should leave. OK, that's your rant. But it's obviously up to them, not me, not you, and they aren't leaving. And BSA does allow it by virtue (pun intended) of their don't-ask-don't-tell policy. Sputter all you want, there's nothing you can do about it. And that's my point (and you should agree), it is a failed policy. It doesn't work.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[LongHaul 10]

DanKroh,

You keep on about the fact that pedophiles cant form healthy relationships with other adults, that they (pedophiles) have an internal conflict. Says who? They people who said homosexuality was a mental disorder? The people who said homosexuality can be cured? The people who said homosexuality was abhorrent in the eyes of god? Others in this thread are talking about Douglas Smith do you consider him to be a pedophile? Where were these signs of problematic relationships which should have alerted all his associates? Maybe my first error was in not defining terms but I doubt it. We can cloud the whole discussion with what constitutes a pedophile and at what age is a child not a child and at what point is it OK to fantasize about them. The whole pedophile problem is that it involves children and we cant get past that. Even if the children arent harmed by the experience society cant get past the protective impulse. Talk to someone in Narcotics Anonymous about the reception they got if they sought help in an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. The NAs believe that alcohol is a drug the AAs do not. Many AAs cant accept NAs as being of the same cloth with just a different drug of choice. We are not ready to lump alcohol with drug users. OH! Well drug use is illegal! If we legalized drug use that would make it different? Then we could accept alcohol as a drug? Pedophilia involves children and that means it cant be accepted even as a mental disorder it must be wrong in all forms. This is the same way homosexuality was viewed, it involves same gender intimate contact which must be viewed as wrong no matter what. Gays have spent a lot of effort trying to defend the concept that loving someone is not wrong even if they are of the same gender but age! Oh thats a different story. The pictures Douglas Smith had on his computer where illegal, had those pictures been of adult males would he still have been in as much trouble? If homosexuality was still illegal in Texas would that have made the two situations equal?

You ask me to explain my comparison of traumatizing adolescent gays with traumatizing children in general about Pornography. Let me try this approach, lets talk about porn I cant define it but I know it when I see it.. Would a picture of two adult males locked in passionate embrace, genitalia carefully out of sight be Pornography? All the yeses on this side the nos against the wall. Child pornography is only bad because society says it is bad. Romeo and Juliette were 14 and they were about to start a family. Juliets parents were about to marry her off. An adult having fantasies about her would be sick? Again we have the definition of pedophile and what constitutes a child I see it as splitting hairs to avoid the real issue. Ask anyone in this forum who has a 14 year old Freshman daughter if they consider her a child for the purposes of this discussion. I think everyone is aware of the two young girls that have made the white power videos and the stories about how they are raised and the ideas they have been taught to embrace. If it was nudity and sexuality instead of hate it would be illegal, but as it is its news. We can argue all we want about terminology and medical definition my point is the same a door has been opened and more things are going to come through it that was intended. If we are going to talk about acceptance then we should be ready to discuss accepting everyone no matter what. If we are supposed to set aside old ideas then set aside all the old ideas not just those affecting our personal issue.

LongHaul