So a Scout Tells you he is gay????

[Eagle732 27]

Pint, you hit the nail on the head with this statement:

""So a Scout Tells you he is gay????" i would leave it at that and say its no problem ( even if it was/could be) as long as they didn't make an issue of it - i dont walk around shouting im straight/hetro, and niether would i expect any one to walk round shouting that they are gay/homosexual. "

See that's the problem, people here can't keep their personal life private. They post everything they do on Facebook, they go to their Scoutmaster and declare they're gay and agnostic, and then they wonder why they don't earn Eagle. Go figure.

[packsaddle 753]

If the CO accepts them, if the BSA accepts them, then who am I to go against the actual authorities? Nldscout, to use your own personal example, BSA is the 'judge' in this case. I accept that. DADT might not be the rule YOU like but it IS the way membership is decided by BSA. This is the reality YOU need to learn to live with. If you want to argue your point, argue with BSA about THEIR practice. I merely agree with them and conform to their membership practice.

 

SeattlePioneer, in your pathetic, sex-obsessed world, I am not surprised by your opinion that the gay mom of a cub scout and any law-abiding atheist is no different from a convicted felon/sex offender. I do thank you for being clear and honest about your prejudice.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[qwazse 4342]

It's not exactly DADT. It's asking a youth to not cave in to society's pressure towards sexualization (of any orientation) before he/she can even afford the costs of sexual activity. (Otherwise, the government or my insurance plan pays.). I've done that for several youth and, oddly, they seemed to have listened at least until they were officially adults.

 

If a youth tells me, "I don't care about the costs, or my religion, or the norms you're trying to foist on me." I might just reply, "Well, scouting just might not be for you."

 

Not a single youth has told me that. So I'm just being hypothetical. If one ever does, I'll let you know a few monts after the fact..

[Cambridgeskip 658]

"Once you deceide to ignore that rule, where do you stop? Is then 20 Merit badges enough for eagle, or 12 nights of camping for OA? "

 

NDL - i think the difference here is that there is a clear and obvious reason for that rule. Eagle Scout is designed to be the highest award that BSA can give a youth member. It naturally requires high standards. Perhaps some folks think it should be changed but ultimately there is a reasoning behind it that everyone can see.

 

With regard to homosexuality there is no clear reasoning. Yes you can point to passages from the Old Testament but BSA is not an organisation just for those from Abrahamic faiths. There is no evidence, despite the views of some ignorant morons to the contrary, of it being linked to peadophilia, it is not a choice, homosexuals are no more or less promiscuose than those who are straight. There is no reasonable explanation for the existance of that rule that stands up to any kind of scutiny.

 

So when you have rules that have no reasoning that stands up to any kind of scrutiny then is it any wonder that significant numbers rebel against it?

 

At work I am expected to log every email I receive on a spreadsheet and log when I've dealt with it. Do I? No. It's an absurd rule with no reasoning behind it so I ignore it. Does my manager care? No. Does his manager? No. In the mean time I go about getting the job done.

 

"If the CO accepts them, if the BSA accepts them, then who am I to go against the actual authorities?"

 

As an outsider looking in this made me chuckle as it reminded me of a fundamental difference between the British (and indeed most of Europe) and Americans. We have a huge disdain for authority. We really do. We'll listen politely, we'll sign up to whatever nonsense they put in front of us just to get them out the door and then we'll ignore them completely. The French are even better at it than we are (though few brits will admit it). For a country who's constitution is built on no individual having too much power I find it amazing that Americans just don't do "passive aggresive". It's ana amazing way of getting things changed.

[packsaddle 753]

Careful there, Cambridgeskip! You're making nldscout and SeattlePioneer look like examples of the British model. You sure you want that?

 

 

OK, OK...they can be 'French'.

 

Edit to add: I can't remember who used this quote but I've always liked it. "I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution. Ulysses S. Grant

 

See, to me THIS is also a model for passive aggressiveness. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[SeattlePioneer 144]

>

 

 

 

Hello Packsaddle,

 

 

When someone poses a question they consider provocative, why object when someone provides a reply?

 

Let's recognize that there is already a litany of "orientations" that liberals want to protect. Not just gays, but lesnians, bisexuals, transgendered and so on and so on. I would expect that litany to increase in number in the years to come.

 

There is already an organization promoting "man-boy love" as nor mal and natural. I see no reason why that kind of lust is different than other kinds of lust in it's fundamental nature.

 

Indeed, I would equate that sexual orientation with heterosexuality. Lust is lust. At least for today and tomorrow, "man-boy love" is still illegal, but I fully expect that the sexual liberation movement will get around to using their customary line of argument to make that behavior not just legal, but respectable.

 

When that happens, you will no doubt be accusing me of again being a bigot. I expect you will be an early adopter of the latest fashion in morality when that happens.

 

Because the fundamental value of the sexual liberation movement is, "If it feels good, do it." Nothing must be allowed to get between the sexual lust a person feels and satisfying that lust. That is the catechism of the sexual liberation movement. If you still think something is perverted, they just haven't gotten around to applying their usual arguments. Yet.