Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kahuna

LGBT: Critical Mass?

Recommended Posts

What we will see next is a push for the legalization of polygamy under similar equal protection arguments because it is, after all, between consenting adults. Then as Scouter 99 points out, we will see consent and "statutory" rape weakened. After all, an 18-year old woman pursuing a 14-year old girl just does not have the same ring to it as an 18 year old man and a 14 year old girl: http://www.worldmag.com/2013/05/father_of_18_year_old_lesbian_calls_daughter_s_statutory_rape_charge_unfair. From that point, who knows? Everything moves faster when you're going downhill after all.
So when the BSA is ultimately forced to register gay leaders, I'm wondering if we'll have to have a "no dating" provision similar to what currently exists in the Venturing program?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What we will see next is a push for the legalization of polygamy under similar equal protection arguments because it is, after all, between consenting adults. Then as Scouter 99 points out, we will see consent and "statutory" rape weakened. After all, an 18-year old woman pursuing a 14-year old girl just does not have the same ring to it as an 18 year old man and a 14 year old girl: http://www.worldmag.com/2013/05/father_of_18_year_old_lesbian_calls_daughter_s_statutory_rape_charge_unfair. From that point, who knows? Everything moves faster when you're going downhill after all.
Brewmeister - you make no sense, the "no dating" policy is not about adult with adult adult leadership in the venturing crew, many of the crews adult leadership is with husband & wife both being leaders, there are some stories of blossoming romances through being adult leaders in scouting also, I know a few couples myself who met in scouting .. It applies to only the crew members.. Could two adult leaders of same sex fine their sole mates through scouting someday in the future, once the ban is lifted?? A definite possibility.. Good for them..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What we will see next is a push for the legalization of polygamy under similar equal protection arguments because it is, after all, between consenting adults. Then as Scouter 99 points out, we will see consent and "statutory" rape weakened. After all, an 18-year old woman pursuing a 14-year old girl just does not have the same ring to it as an 18 year old man and a 14 year old girl: http://www.worldmag.com/2013/05/father_of_18_year_old_lesbian_calls_daughter_s_statutory_rape_charge_unfair. From that point, who knows? Everything moves faster when you're going downhill after all.
I know my council has a "No Marriage" Policy. Mom and Dad are not allowed to tent together on Council property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What we will see next is a push for the legalization of polygamy under similar equal protection arguments because it is, after all, between consenting adults. Then as Scouter 99 points out, we will see consent and "statutory" rape weakened. After all, an 18-year old woman pursuing a 14-year old girl just does not have the same ring to it as an 18 year old man and a 14 year old girl: http://www.worldmag.com/2013/05/father_of_18_year_old_lesbian_calls_daughter_s_statutory_rape_charge_unfair. From that point, who knows? Everything moves faster when you're going downhill after all.
LOL KDD.. Early morning and I was reading slowly.. I got to the "No Marriage" Policy and had time to think about it before finishing the statement.. I thought you meant leaders could not be married.. So if a couple wanted to be scout leaders they needed to divorce before they could do that.. Or perhaps it's a total "No Marriage" policy where you just allow single adult leaders only.. I guess I would call that rule a strict "no co-ed tenting" policy rather then a "No Marriage" policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What we will see next is a push for the legalization of polygamy under similar equal protection arguments because it is, after all, between consenting adults. Then as Scouter 99 points out, we will see consent and "statutory" rape weakened. After all, an 18-year old woman pursuing a 14-year old girl just does not have the same ring to it as an 18 year old man and a 14 year old girl: http://www.worldmag.com/2013/05/father_of_18_year_old_lesbian_calls_daughter_s_statutory_rape_charge_unfair. From that point, who knows? Everything moves faster when you're going downhill after all.
I also call it the Ricky and Lucy Policy. (For you young ones, Ricky and Lucy slept in twin beds on the show) I prefer to call it the No Marriage Policy because they are essentially saying it is damaging to youth to see parents sleeping in the the same room. It is so much better if parents are split up.

 

Cub camping is supposed to be family camping and we are supposed to promote camping in the program. So lets make families buy TWO tents. Everyone ignores the policy and laughs about it. I mean who is going to police such nonsense. Is the DE going to come around at 2 AM unzipping tents and rousing out these "dens of sin" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What we will see next is a push for the legalization of polygamy under similar equal protection arguments because it is, after all, between consenting adults. Then as Scouter 99 points out, we will see consent and "statutory" rape weakened. After all, an 18-year old woman pursuing a 14-year old girl just does not have the same ring to it as an 18 year old man and a 14 year old girl: http://www.worldmag.com/2013/05/father_of_18_year_old_lesbian_calls_daughter_s_statutory_rape_charge_unfair. From that point, who knows? Everything moves faster when you're going downhill after all.
"I Love Lucy" was a bit controversial when it started, as it was the first major TV show with a mixed marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry Brew, I'm not going to go out on the extreme with you. Social progress is like this with a few steps forward and a step back, moving in lurches and not with predictable steadiness. I understand that some people oppose equal rights for certain groups of people. Some of these opponents even believe that their religious beliefs have legal relevance. Of all of our contemporary social topics, Jesus is quoted most often speaking about money. If he was as worried about homosexuality as today's conservatives would like to believe, I think that he would have had more to say about it.

 

Despite all of the hype by Christianists about protecting the institute of marriage, Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians. Some of those folks should look at gay people getting married as true conservatives and not religious zealots. I think that parents raising children in families with two parents in a stable and committed relationship is a good thing. I don't care if it sometimes happens that some of those parents are gay.

It's not just Christians. For many people, it's about changing the definition of something. The sun is the sun and it's a star. Always has been. To decide you want to call it the moon and not a star doesn't make it so. Go to the superbowl some time and start yelling swing, batter, batter and homerun when they make a touchdown. Football is football and baseball is baseball regardless of someone wanting to change the defintions to suit themselves. Before someone calls me a Bible thumper or homophobic, I'm not. I have gay family members and my best friend is gay. I'm fine with it. But marriage from the beginning of time, or at least since recorded histroy has been the relationship between a nman and a woman and is the foundational unit of a family. It is what it is. Redefining it doesn't change what it is anymore than calling a touchdown a homerun. If you want to give gay couples the same legal rights as hetero couples, fine, no problem. Create the legal means for them to be bound legally. But don't redefine the meaning of the word marriage to fit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry Brew, I'm not going to go out on the extreme with you. Social progress is like this with a few steps forward and a step back, moving in lurches and not with predictable steadiness. I understand that some people oppose equal rights for certain groups of people. Some of these opponents even believe that their religious beliefs have legal relevance. Of all of our contemporary social topics, Jesus is quoted most often speaking about money. If he was as worried about homosexuality as today's conservatives would like to believe, I think that he would have had more to say about it.

 

Despite all of the hype by Christianists about protecting the institute of marriage, Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians. Some of those folks should look at gay people getting married as true conservatives and not religious zealots. I think that parents raising children in families with two parents in a stable and committed relationship is a good thing. I don't care if it sometimes happens that some of those parents are gay.

While the sun has always been a star, it wasn't considered a star until fairly recently. Pluto was a planet until a few years ago.

 

But marriage from the beginning of time, or at least since recorded histroy has been the relationship between a nman and a woman and is the foundational unit of a family.

 

Not at all; polygamy has been about as common as monogamy throughout history. It was legal in Hong Kong until 1971.

 

If you want to give gay couples the same legal rights as hetero couples, fine, no problem. Create the legal means for them to be bound legally. But don't redefine the meaning of the word marriage to fit it.

 

Why not? That's the easiest way to insure the same legal rights. You don't have to use the word unless you're speaking in some legal context. Call it whatever you want in the vernacular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many people are celebrating the Stonewall Riots right now as the beginning of the gay rights movement, but the fact of the matter is that there have been modern concerted attempts going back to the Victorian age.

The book "Toward Stonewall" has large free segments on Google books that cover the Victorian movements, which mostly centered on boy love ("boy" in the Victorian sense means "teenager" in the modern), including Germany's first Scouting movement, the Wandervoegel ("migrating birds"). These Victorian movements focused on the beauty of the young male, and the power of homosexual sex in personal development. The feminist Germaine Greer has also written about this in her book The Beautiful Boy.

Gay Swedish publisher/writer Karl Andersson writes about the whitewashing tactic of the contemporary gay rights movement in his book "Gay Man's Worst Friend." Written from his personal perspective of going from gay publishing hero to zero for daring to break the image we're all being sold, Andersson explains how the contemporary gay rights movement has basically whittled down gay culture for a straight, voting audience to mean nothing more than "just like you, except with another man." Except, he tells us, that's not right at all.

Both are very interesting reads that can be bought cheap.

 

The critical mass we're at isn't really surprising. It's the product of 40 years of carefully managed whitewashing, image control, lobbying, and opposition demonizing (that last point not without plenty of help from oppositional loudmouths) toward a political ends of gay rights. Young people's concept of homosexuality has been shaped by a political machine, and that aptly. The issue is no longer engaging to me, it is (as your lunch crowd agreed) pretty much over.

What will be interesting now is seeing how long it takes for age of consent laws to be weakened and repealed, because at the same time we (as a society) have been learning not to judge people who pick up boys for sex in locker rooms and write Top 40 hits about it, we've ironically become much more conservative about teen sex (or maybe I should have said "wisely" rather than "ironically"--it depends on how much credit you give the average guy.)

If the two books cited are the secret playbooks to the Great Homosexuality Conspiracy to increase the rights of gay people so they can lower the age of consent and "recruit" teenage boys, then they appear to be thinly read. "Towards Stonewall" has zero reviews on Amazon and "Gay Man's Worst Friend" has merely two reviews. The lack of critical reviews makes them suspect to say the least. And linking gay men to pedophilia is offensive and demeaning not to mention erroneous by a number of studies.

 

Personally I am more amused by the conspiracy theory that the Illuminati is promoting homosexuality to lower and limit the world population to a sustainable 500 million. At least this theory has a comic absurdity about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many people are celebrating the Stonewall Riots right now as the beginning of the gay rights movement, but the fact of the matter is that there have been modern concerted attempts going back to the Victorian age.

The book "Toward Stonewall" has large free segments on Google books that cover the Victorian movements, which mostly centered on boy love ("boy" in the Victorian sense means "teenager" in the modern), including Germany's first Scouting movement, the Wandervoegel ("migrating birds"). These Victorian movements focused on the beauty of the young male, and the power of homosexual sex in personal development. The feminist Germaine Greer has also written about this in her book The Beautiful Boy.

Gay Swedish publisher/writer Karl Andersson writes about the whitewashing tactic of the contemporary gay rights movement in his book "Gay Man's Worst Friend." Written from his personal perspective of going from gay publishing hero to zero for daring to break the image we're all being sold, Andersson explains how the contemporary gay rights movement has basically whittled down gay culture for a straight, voting audience to mean nothing more than "just like you, except with another man." Except, he tells us, that's not right at all.

Both are very interesting reads that can be bought cheap.

 

The critical mass we're at isn't really surprising. It's the product of 40 years of carefully managed whitewashing, image control, lobbying, and opposition demonizing (that last point not without plenty of help from oppositional loudmouths) toward a political ends of gay rights. Young people's concept of homosexuality has been shaped by a political machine, and that aptly. The issue is no longer engaging to me, it is (as your lunch crowd agreed) pretty much over.

What will be interesting now is seeing how long it takes for age of consent laws to be weakened and repealed, because at the same time we (as a society) have been learning not to judge people who pick up boys for sex in locker rooms and write Top 40 hits about it, we've ironically become much more conservative about teen sex (or maybe I should have said "wisely" rather than "ironically"--it depends on how much credit you give the average guy.)

DigitalScout, Do you think the Illuminati also were behind the whitewash job done to accept racial integration and interracial marriage and end the purity of the white race? If so, one can only guess what their motives were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry Brew, I'm not going to go out on the extreme with you. Social progress is like this with a few steps forward and a step back, moving in lurches and not with predictable steadiness. I understand that some people oppose equal rights for certain groups of people. Some of these opponents even believe that their religious beliefs have legal relevance. Of all of our contemporary social topics, Jesus is quoted most often speaking about money. If he was as worried about homosexuality as today's conservatives would like to believe, I think that he would have had more to say about it.

 

Despite all of the hype by Christianists about protecting the institute of marriage, Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians. Some of those folks should look at gay people getting married as true conservatives and not religious zealots. I think that parents raising children in families with two parents in a stable and committed relationship is a good thing. I don't care if it sometimes happens that some of those parents are gay.

Polygamy is still legal in the USA as well. Just not all at the same time. Just ask Newt Gingrich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the bright side: public schools can again sponsor Scouts, California police & fire can get re-involved with Learning for Life. Research biologists understand that the incidence of homosexuality increases as an area increases past its carrying capacity -- one of Gaia's pressure relief valves. We need to be very careful we (hetereo) don't treat gays as our forefathers treated post Civil War freed slaves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry Brew, I'm not going to go out on the extreme with you. Social progress is like this with a few steps forward and a step back, moving in lurches and not with predictable steadiness. I understand that some people oppose equal rights for certain groups of people. Some of these opponents even believe that their religious beliefs have legal relevance. Of all of our contemporary social topics, Jesus is quoted most often speaking about money. If he was as worried about homosexuality as today's conservatives would like to believe, I think that he would have had more to say about it.

 

Despite all of the hype by Christianists about protecting the institute of marriage, Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians. Some of those folks should look at gay people getting married as true conservatives and not religious zealots. I think that parents raising children in families with two parents in a stable and committed relationship is a good thing. I don't care if it sometimes happens that some of those parents are gay.

Can anybody explain how Newt is now a Catholic ? Is it because he wasn't one in his previous two marriages, so those do not count ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many people are celebrating the Stonewall Riots right now as the beginning of the gay rights movement, but the fact of the matter is that there have been modern concerted attempts going back to the Victorian age.

The book "Toward Stonewall" has large free segments on Google books that cover the Victorian movements, which mostly centered on boy love ("boy" in the Victorian sense means "teenager" in the modern), including Germany's first Scouting movement, the Wandervoegel ("migrating birds"). These Victorian movements focused on the beauty of the young male, and the power of homosexual sex in personal development. The feminist Germaine Greer has also written about this in her book The Beautiful Boy.

Gay Swedish publisher/writer Karl Andersson writes about the whitewashing tactic of the contemporary gay rights movement in his book "Gay Man's Worst Friend." Written from his personal perspective of going from gay publishing hero to zero for daring to break the image we're all being sold, Andersson explains how the contemporary gay rights movement has basically whittled down gay culture for a straight, voting audience to mean nothing more than "just like you, except with another man." Except, he tells us, that's not right at all.

Both are very interesting reads that can be bought cheap.

 

The critical mass we're at isn't really surprising. It's the product of 40 years of carefully managed whitewashing, image control, lobbying, and opposition demonizing (that last point not without plenty of help from oppositional loudmouths) toward a political ends of gay rights. Young people's concept of homosexuality has been shaped by a political machine, and that aptly. The issue is no longer engaging to me, it is (as your lunch crowd agreed) pretty much over.

What will be interesting now is seeing how long it takes for age of consent laws to be weakened and repealed, because at the same time we (as a society) have been learning not to judge people who pick up boys for sex in locker rooms and write Top 40 hits about it, we've ironically become much more conservative about teen sex (or maybe I should have said "wisely" rather than "ironically"--it depends on how much credit you give the average guy.)

Packsaddle, just to clarify, I don't believe Illuminati conspiracy theories. Many people are perfectly willing to accept crazy explanations when things happen which they don't understand. People don't like not knowing. They will believe just about any explanation if it wraps it up in a nice tidy package. Mysterious lights in the sky ... must be aliens. Unidentified animal making strange sounds ... must be Bigfoot. 2000 years ago, if there was lightning in the sky ... it must be an angry Zeus.

 

For some people, believing that two adult people of the same sex can love each other is crazy. Now that that society is starting to accept gay marriage, the anti-gay people think, "well that is really nuts so there must be some kind of conspiracy in the works." To conspiracy theorists, the crazier the theory, the more rational it is to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many people are celebrating the Stonewall Riots right now as the beginning of the gay rights movement, but the fact of the matter is that there have been modern concerted attempts going back to the Victorian age.

The book "Toward Stonewall" has large free segments on Google books that cover the Victorian movements, which mostly centered on boy love ("boy" in the Victorian sense means "teenager" in the modern), including Germany's first Scouting movement, the Wandervoegel ("migrating birds"). These Victorian movements focused on the beauty of the young male, and the power of homosexual sex in personal development. The feminist Germaine Greer has also written about this in her book The Beautiful Boy.

Gay Swedish publisher/writer Karl Andersson writes about the whitewashing tactic of the contemporary gay rights movement in his book "Gay Man's Worst Friend." Written from his personal perspective of going from gay publishing hero to zero for daring to break the image we're all being sold, Andersson explains how the contemporary gay rights movement has basically whittled down gay culture for a straight, voting audience to mean nothing more than "just like you, except with another man." Except, he tells us, that's not right at all.

Both are very interesting reads that can be bought cheap.

 

The critical mass we're at isn't really surprising. It's the product of 40 years of carefully managed whitewashing, image control, lobbying, and opposition demonizing (that last point not without plenty of help from oppositional loudmouths) toward a political ends of gay rights. Young people's concept of homosexuality has been shaped by a political machine, and that aptly. The issue is no longer engaging to me, it is (as your lunch crowd agreed) pretty much over.

What will be interesting now is seeing how long it takes for age of consent laws to be weakened and repealed, because at the same time we (as a society) have been learning not to judge people who pick up boys for sex in locker rooms and write Top 40 hits about it, we've ironically become much more conservative about teen sex (or maybe I should have said "wisely" rather than "ironically"--it depends on how much credit you give the average guy.)

Aw, now you're taking all the fun out. You DO know that bigfoot is real...right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×