SR540Beaver 116 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 shortridge, I'll bite. I wear a wedding ring. However, I do not make it a point to inform everyone that I am heterosexual and that I have an axe to grind over it. Many gays I know don't either. But many I've known have. Their whole being and purpose in life was wrapped up in it. They are no more acceptable as a scout leader than a swaggering adulterer who tells everyone about his conquests. I think the difference is that there are no organized efforts by swaggering adulterers to force their lifestyle on society and become scout leaders. But if they avowed themselves as such, I don't think a unit would accept them. Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 So has the BSA been kicking out people who have been vigorously advocating "1 man - 1 woman" marriage and I've just been missing all the stories? Link to post Share on other sites
SR540Beaver 116 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Honestly Merlyn, I've never heard 1 man - 1 woman being advocated. Our meetings and outings center on Scouting activities. Link to post Share on other sites
packsaddle 753 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Skeptic, the 'avowed' thing is unavoidable if the goal is to exclude gays. Because 'gayness' is not something that can be identified from a fingerprint or from a photo or from our SSN, the only way to detect gays is for them to be 'out' - or 'avowed'. This is not the same for obese people. Their obesity can often be determined at a glance and therefore, if such a policy of exclusion were applied to obese people, they could be excluded fairly quickly - or given, say, 6 months to slim down. Now, as I understand it, a person who decides they are an atheist is also at risk of being excluded. BUT, they might be given a chance to change their mind and 'claim' they believe in a god of some sort. Which would satisfy BSA, I think. So there are three categories of exclusion: 1) a condition that cannot be changed but can be hidden and therefore not excluded, 2) a condition that is outwardly obvious but could be changed, and 3) a condition of the mind for which any claim could be made, truth of which would be absolutely undetectable by BSA. The question is, if a gay leader claimed that he had changed and become straight, would BSA allow him back? If not, BSA is in support of the permanent and biological nature of 'gayness'. If BSA would allow him back, gays could then move to category 3. Obese people would simply have to slim down, sorry. Of course that begs the question of what constitutes obesity? Link to post Share on other sites
OldGreyEagle 5 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Obesity is defined by the new Medical form, naturally. Too Fat, Too Bad, thats it, fat is out and thin is in Link to post Share on other sites
Beavah 205 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 LOL. Yah, and I reckon da smokers are next, eh? Especially with the new research on 3rd-hand smoke (just bein' around smokers even when they're not smoking increases health risks). Why, da smokers are demonstrably more dangerous than either the atheists or the gays! Link to post Share on other sites
GernBlansten 10 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Well, smokers may have a filthy habit, but athiests and gays have filthy minds. Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 SR540Beaver writes: Honestly Merlyn, I've never heard 1 man - 1 woman being advocated. Our meetings and outings center on Scouting activities. Oh, I'm not talking about meetings & outings, I'm talking about anywhere in public, such as in the local newspaper, like the way James Dale was kicked out after he appeared in the college newspaper. Link to post Share on other sites
packsaddle 753 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 OGE, I looked at the medical form and I see your point. I note that the height/weight limits also apply to really skinny people. But it doesn't expel obese people. It only limits their activities on certain outings. I'm not sure I have a problem with this. It's not the same as being denied membership. I worked with a guy whose weight was so great that there was only one scale in a five-county area that could weigh him accurately. I had to buy a special chair that cost over $400 to keep him safe and to prevent further destruction of federal property. He lived his life as if he had no idea of the physical limitations his size placed on his abilities. Consequently, he was at great needless risk. Fortunately, when the inevitable happened, he was at home and he survived. But he didn't learn his lesson. I wasn't allowed to restrict his activities on the job because I wasn't qualified and I wasn't responsible for those decisions. However, if there had been a form and a set of restrictions like those on the medical form, he (and the rest of us) would have taken a lot less risk. Link to post Share on other sites
scoutldr 732 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 What makes you think his weight was something that he could control, "if he wanted to?" Obesity is a very complex disease comprising an interaction of many physical and mental factors, not the least of which is genetics. The same could be said of smokers. But we look the other way, because, "the poor souls are addicted and they can't help it, and it's really, really hard to quit." BS. I feel the same way toward smokers that other people feel about me..."just quit putting stuff in your face, stupid." Would that it were that simple. Link to post Share on other sites
packsaddle 753 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 "...if he wanted to" what? participate in those activities? Are you quoting me? If so I can't find those words in my posts here. Scoutldr, I apologize if I implied that weight reduction is always simple or easy. I understand that it is neither for some. And I have no sympathy whatsoever for nicotine addicts and I agree with your point about tobacco use. When I examined the medical form I noted that BSA did not include smoking as a risk factor while at the same time they restricted those who are overweight. You think maybe there are some smokers at the top levels of BSA? Would hypocrisy at that level be a shock to your intuition? But my point was a simple one. It was that exclusion from some type of outing on the basis of physical condition falls far short of being denied membership as a result of personal thoughts. Link to post Share on other sites
GernBlansten 10 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Pack, You are insinuating that it is ok for BSA to exclude fat people from some activities but grant them access to other functions. Could the same be applied to the avowed gay? Can't go camping, but maybe serve in some other function where their pedophilic ways wouldn't threaten the youth? Link to post Share on other sites
OldGreyEagle 5 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Gern, Gern, Gern, Gern, and it was going along so well, well I thought it was. Gay, Avowed or otherwise, does not equal Pedophilic anymoer than being Heterosexaul equals Pedophilic. For every male authority figure (Coach, Teacher, etc) in the paper molesting boys, there is a comparative story about a male molesting a girl. Link to post Share on other sites
GernBlansten 10 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Sorry, just can't shake the stereotypes. Link to post Share on other sites
Eagledad 2780 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 >>Could the same be applied to the avowed gay? Can't go camping, but maybe serve in some other function where their pedophilic ways wouldn't threaten the youth? 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