Mr. Boyce 13 Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 I'm tired of liberal politicians who get elected and jack around with all this nonsense. The nation's severely stressed. So they want to re-arrange the deck chairs. Some fix! Link to post Share on other sites
NJCubScouter 1389 Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Didn't this thread used to be about George Takei? Then for awhile it was about the "gay issue" in general. I'm not even sure what the topic is now. I think this thread may be nearing the record for the most distant topic-wanderings in a relatively short thread. And that's a tough record to beat in this forum. Link to post Share on other sites
Callooh! Callay!1428010939 28 Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 "Didn't this thread used to be about George Takei?" Indeed it was... but was the problem? I can't recall... was it that folks were worried that he might be an atheist because he's a Buddhist? Link to post Share on other sites
moosetracker 132 Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 No, it's that he was a spokesperson for BSA, but now he is openly gay (people commented he was always open about it, even when he was on startrek, so he was openly gay as a SM and the spokesperson.) and he and his husband are in support of the lady who was kicked out due to her sexual orientation. Why? you want to go back to the original topic??.. It has some congruency.. It's a topic on all things that liberals and conservatives constantly fight about. Link to post Share on other sites
Lisabob 13 Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 ~rolls eyes~ There are three topics I really dislike talking about when it comes to people's political views. One is abortion, the second is the origin of sexual orientation, and the third is immigration. On all three, people tend to believe what they believe, no matter what the actual facts are. So I know I should let this go, but "Cross the boarder 8 mths pregnat and drop the kid, instance citizenship.. " Moosetracker, you do realize that this is not new and is completely unrelated to the recent announcement about not pursuing law-abiding youth who were brought here illegally as (already born) children, don't you? Back to George Takei... Link to post Share on other sites
moosetracker 132 Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Yeah, I realized it after posting it.. I meant to say, bring 2 year old over boarder.. Instance citizenship (for whole family).. But, I posted and took off for somewhere, thought about it in the car, but by the time I got back I.. A) couldn't change it as it was posted over an hour back. b) forgot about it.. Of course as stated the whole thing is broken .. Once the put feet on American soil, it is very hard to get them deported (This message has been edited by moosetracker) Link to post Share on other sites
Callooh! Callay!1428010939 28 Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 I don't care much about gayness one way or the other. But there's a practical concern here. Gays per se are not bad people just for being gay. But, BSA is an organization for boys... boys that many gays will find attractive. If you scoff at the notion that many gays will find boys attractive, a bit of very unsavory research, that I need not spell out for you, may disabuse you of that delusion. These gays will not tell us that they are joining BSA because they are attracted to boys - heck, they might even lie to themselves about it. If a troop excludes whatever small percentage of the people who want to be scouters from among the already small percentage (less than 5% of Americans) who are gay? What has that troop lost? Even if only 1 out 100 gays is of the sort about which we might worry - the other 99 are not a big proportion of the potential volunteer base. Although less than 5% of the US population is gay, gays currently occupy a disproportionate space in the public imagination. And attitudes toward them are changing in society. That will color attitudes toward organizations that exclude them. Unless the trend changes, BSA will have to decide where it wants to be on a changed spectrum of being in tune with society at large vs holding values that differ in some way from society at large. BSA may well cave into pressures on the gay issue if and when it calculates it can survive a possible exodus of LDS and other similarly principled groups that may care less about being in tune with wider society on issues like that. If and when it happens, IMO, Chartering Orgs should retain authority over whether or not they accept gays. Link to post Share on other sites
howarthe 42 Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 The practical problem has nothing to do with protecting children. The practical problem is all about appeasing scouters who don't want homosexuals anywhere near their children. The REASON they don't want homosexuals near their children varies from scouter to scouter, but many believe that homosexuals are more likely to abuse their children than heterosexuals. They are not wrong, however, the numbers do not match their level of concern. I've never read a case of a homosexual scouter sexually abusing a scout. Every case I have ever read about was always a heterosexual scouter, and often a Latter-day Saint. i can think of no practical reason to exclude homosexual scouts. Do scouters really believe that homosexual scouts might abuse heterosexual scouts? or that homosexual scouts might use scouting to find each other like the YMCA? Today I read the article in the original post which included this statement: "The Boy Scouts of America has a long-standing policy of discrimination against LGBT people." Is that true? I thought the discrimination policy was created in 1991. Is a twenty year old policy equivalent to a long standing tradition? Chartered organizations have always had control over who they choose as their scout leaders. I think it is a terrible shame that national chose to write a policy where none was needed. It seems to me that this policy has helped no one and harmed many. Link to post Share on other sites
moosetracker 132 Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Callooh! Callay! - That is like saying not to have women as adult leaders as they will be sexually attracted to our youth.. Again for the 1000th time, there is a difference between homosexuals and pedophiles.. And, yes, pedophiles should not be adult leaders, but homosexuals are as safe as women around your male youth. Also just like accepting women or accepting or dening anyone as a youth leader based on whatever criteria you so choose all anyone wants is it to be a choice of the Charter Orgs. howarthe - I agree with you, had they not changed the policy to be descriminatory, they would have fared better.. Now to keep descriminating, they will suffer from those who protest it, and pull away from backing and supporting it.. To end the descrimination, they will suffer from the wrath of those who feel some sort of superficial protection over not knowing who is and who isn't homosexual in the group.. Had they just continued to leave it up to the Charter Orgs decision they would have sailed through without having to choose sides in this polarized topic at all.. Still would have had the atheist debate.. But, I don't think that one is as heated a topic (yet). Link to post Share on other sites
Callooh! Callay!1428010939 28 Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 "That is like saying not to have women as adult leaders as they will be sexually attracted to our youth." -In what way is it like saying that? Are women's sexual drive and behaviors identical to men? When I say "picture in your mind, a rapist" do you picture a woman or a man? And since you pictured a man or you are extraordinarily naive, why did you picture a man? Is it because you are an evil sex-stereotyper or because you live on this planet and have a basic grasp of probability? Will you now tell us that there is a difference between homosexuals and rapists as if I had claimed there weren't? "Again for the 1000th time, there is a difference between homosexuals and pedophiles" Has it been a 1000 times? Odd. Why so many? When did anyone assert that there wasn't? Does this difference negate any attraction that homosexual men might feel toward teenage boys? Does such a difference negate any attraction heterosexual men might feel toward teenage girls? And for the 1000th time, there is a difference between not wanting to send boys camping with gays and wanting to send gays to Iranian prisons. When an oganization charters a BSA troop, doing what's good and nice and fair toward homosexuals may not be the foremost thing on their minds. They may understand that there are homosexuals who would probably work out just fine as adult leaders and whom they could trust would never. Nevertheless, regardless of how BSA policy overall evolves on this issue the chartering org should retain the right to exclude homosexuals if that is their preference. Link to post Share on other sites
moosetracker 132 Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Most pedophiles are not attracted to adult male or females, if they are both, then many are heterosexual (even if they are attracted to boys rather then girls..) Take the one most in the news now Jerry Sandusky.. half the homosexuals are lesbians, do you feel they are most apt to rape our male youth?.. Is that why Jennifer Tyrrell was ousted, the fear because she is attracted to other females it makes her more likely to rape our young boys, then a heterosexual male would? Link to post Share on other sites
Callooh! Callay!1428010939 28 Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 half the homosexuals are lesbians, do you feel they are most apt to rape our male youth? No. I agree with your argument suggesting that the logic for excluding male homosexuals does not apply to lesbians. But that doesn't change my position that the org that charters the troop should decide this issue for its own troop. Link to post Share on other sites
moosetracker 132 Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 But that doesn't change my position that the org that charters the troop should decide this issue for its own troop. We both agree on that statement. As does everyone I have ever heard from who is for the change.. No one has voiced the opinion that a CO like LDS or a Catholic church should be forced to accept homosexuals.. Just that a CO like a public school should be allowed to accept them. Link to post Share on other sites
Callooh! Callay!1428010939 28 Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Then on that policy issue we are in violent agreement. I think the same should apply for policy on atheism - CO's call. Link to post Share on other sites
moosetracker 132 Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Then on that policy issue we are in violent agreement. I think the same should apply for policy on atheism - CO's call. I agree.. Both should be the CO's call, same as if they want to make a stripper an adult leader, or a person who has a past known sex scandel.. All the CO's call, and if they feel is fine the way they are, or have reformed from something in the past.. Never saw .. Violent.. and .. agreement .. used together, I was seeing "violent disagreement", as that is normally the two words paired together. But, then was thrown by the next sentence which said we were in agreement.. I had to read the first sentence over a few times.. 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