Boy Scouts Allow Gays

[Guest 6.8 AR]

No two gays sharing a tent will not "automatically" have sex, but yes it will undoubtedly happen.

You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

And even if it doesn't happen, it never should have been introduced into the mix. But I do agree with you.

[RobertNashville]

The word "gay" is used to delineate one's sexual leaning. It used to just mean "happy". A group making it's

identification a sexual leaning should not be allowed to get away with pushing themselves on another group,

which has no sexual identity attached to it, other than the word "boy". Besides, the word "gay" is also used

by women, Robert, so it tends to be more a sexual thing than anything else. Now, why is one's sexuality so

damned important it has to be included in the Boy Scouts? You can dance around the maypole all day long

and rationalize this away, but it still boils down to sex, and not gender. Gender is covered by there being a

Girl Scouts.

 

Like I have said several times before, I have friends who are or claim to be gay. I don't care, and we are still

friends, really just acquaintances because it has been a couple years since I have been around them, but

it doesn't make me change my views on sexuality regarding the Boy Scouts. They usually do whatever they

want, but the radicals connected to political machinations are the culprit, and not anyone I know.

 

Words have meaning! "Gay", nowadays, is a sexuality identifier. That is the sole basis of my argument and

politics is so deeply embedded in this, to the point it makes it a tragedy. The gay community would have been

better served keeping their mouths shut on this. All they did is ruin another institution.

Ask the Boy Scouts why "one's sexuality" is so important - it's the BSA's formal policy against "gays" that put them in this position in the first place; a policy that was apparently set much more recently than I knew or suspected; a policy they set apparently because they bowed under pressure to have it.

I'd be nothing but supportive of the BSA if they had always had this policy and was being consistent and standing their ground, I wouldn't necessarily agree with the policy but I'd support their right to have it.  Sadly, that doesn't seem to be the case...their "core values" seem to be somewhat flexible.

Edited May 28, 2013 by RobertNashville

[c.a.willard]

I'm still just trying to figure out how this is firearms related.

[Raoul]

I'm still just trying to figure out how this is firearms related.

As John Lennon said...Happiness is a warm gun.

[RobertNashville]

There is a lot of stuff discussed in this section that isn't necessarily "firearm related".

 

Besides, the Boy Scouts are a paramilitary group (I learned that from Red Dawn [original]) and we all know paramilitary groups use arms. :)

[TripleDigitRide]

In the late 60's I went to Camp Boxwell, and I remember quite a few blacks. There were two in my troop(506).

I was also in Troop 514 for a while and don't remember any segregation there, either. And, yes, there were all

black troops, but whatever de-segregation was done, I don't remember it.

 

As far as any proof, what kind do you need? This has been a continual media campaign from the gay movement

and the left who pays the bills. When something like the Scouts start getting pressure from outside sources, just like

the SEIU did to Bank of America, or whoever, they start to get dropping donations from corporations who have

become so politically correct and are scared of people like the IRS, unions and the like.

 

This is no isolated situation as far as this kind of tactic goes. The Rev. Al Sharpton used a similar tactic to get where

he is today, all based on lies and threats and thuggery. Same goes with another Rev., Jesse Jackson. All of this has

been used by radicals to extort something from someone for a long time.

If this is all about money, then I guess the BSA supporters need to start raising more money. If you can garner the same type of enthusiasm and support that Chick-fil-A received, the BSA wouldn't have much to worry about. 

[East_TN_Patriot]

Sounds like a split personality to me ;)

Sounds like you are a libertarian.  :usa:

[daddyo]

If this is all about money, then I guess the BSA supporters need to start raising more money. If you can garner the same type of enthusiasm and support that Chick-fil-A received, the BSA wouldn't have much to worry about. 

 

I'm assuming that anyone who supports the BSA's decision to allow gays doesn't patronize Chik-fil-A.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Why is it that, all of the sudden, gay people have the moral high ground?  [...]  It's like being Gay is tantamount to sainthood.  

I have a feeling the same thing was said about blacks during the civil rights movement and women during their suffrage movement.  The issue here is about treating all people equally based upon their actions and their abilities, not how they identify themselves.  Gays are the latest group to step up and demand the same treatment as other Americans.  I used to be quite anti-gay and after being around many homosexual people in my adult life, including many friends who came out of the closet over the years, I realized how unfair and unjust policies are in this country in relation to homosexual people.  It's really quite sad.

[R_Bert]

You are right. They are not straight.

 

They also are not gay.

 

They are PEDOPHILES, a now common word that covers the vast categories of both pedophiles (prepubescent children) and hebephiles (post pubescent children), which are whole OTHER brands of sexuality entirely.

 

It is also a proven fact that these monsters are almost exclusively heterosexual in their ADULT sexual habits, with a very few that could be described as bisexual with a dominant tendency to the gender opposite them, which is just a fancy way of saying they will have sex with anything that's holding still, but if it can vote they generally choose the heterosexual partner. 

 

Here is a lovely long, educational, and boring, article to lay it out a little more eloquently if you need such a thing - http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

 

I'm really kind of sad to see this as a topic up for debate as to good/bad here, as I would have thought that the people of THIS board was beyond being scared by media hype, bad press, and stereotypes. 

Well.. I don't fully agree.  Bugger boys...yes. absolutely PEDOPHILE/pervert.  But... also booger boys... Homosexual (or Bi-siexual maybe...but stiill SICK)

[East_TN_Patriot]

No two gays sharing a tent will not "automatically" have sex, but yes it will undoubtedly happen.

You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

 

Yes, and???   As if teenage boys and girls haven't been doing this for centuries.  As if gay teens in the BSA haven't been doing this anyhow.  Is clandestine gay sex between boys who have to keep their sexual orientation quiet is somehow morally superior to clandestine gay sex between boys who don't have to keep their sexual orientation a secret?

Frankly the logic that banning openly gay teens from joining the BSA will prevent gay sex is as sound as the idea that banning guns will prevent gun crime.

[TMF]

Barbara Streisand!

You watch your language! This is a family friendly forum!

[Raoul]

Barbra on Southpark. defeated by The Cure.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103727/disintegration-rules

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If this is all about money, then I guess the BSA supporters need to start raising more money. If you can garner the same type of enthusiasm and support that Chick-fil-A received, the BSA wouldn't have much to worry about. 

I didn't realize I was saying it was all about money. I used those as examples of tactics to extort.

[TripleDigitRide]

I didn't realize I was saying it was all about money. I used those as examples of tactics to extort.

They either lose money when outside companies can't support the BSA's anti-gay views, or they'll lose money if and when chartered organizations (Latter-day Saints, Methodist Church, etc) decide to leave because they they can't support the BSA decision to allow gays. 

 

To me, based on everything I've read here and elsewhere, this appears to boil down to money. With that being said, the way I see it, either the pro-gays are going to force them to lose money by way of pressuring outside donors (UPS, for example) to stop funding the BSA, or the anti-gays are going to bring in additional money to offset the lost revenue due to the lack of outside donors. The money is going to have to come from somewhere. Now it's just a matter of which side wants it more. You can't turn back time, and the pro-gay side isn't going to simply disappear, so the anti-gay side better start raking in the dough. Sadly, organizations like the BSA can't sustain on morals alone. 

[DaveTN]

We can’t overthrow our government or start a new one when they do something we don’t like; the scouts and their parents can do just that to their organization. I don’t think the majority of the scouts, parents, or churches, will agree with this decision. We could see a new stronger scout group rise from this or we could see a changing of the guard. If only it was this easy with our government.

 

 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yes, and???   As if teenage boys and girls haven't been doing this for centuries.  As if gay teens in the BSA haven't been doing this anyhow.  Is clandestine gay sex between boys who have to keep their sexual orientation quiet is somehow morally superior to clandestine gay sex between boys who don't have to keep their sexual orientation a secret?

Frankly the logic that banning openly gay teens from joining the BSA will prevent gay sex is as sound as the idea that banning guns will prevent gun crime.

So just encourage it, further. Yeh, that's sound policy. You don't see the condoning of sexual activities in a supposedly

non-sexual organization to be a problem, rather to accept it by saying it has been going on for years? That's not

rational, but you tried to rationalize it, anyway.

 

When someone says something like "Oh, it's been going on for years," the intellectual argument got left on the doorstep.

I thought the idea of discouraging any kind of sexual activities would be the way one would approach this for the

betterment of the organization. that's what ruined it for future scouts. They now have the burden of addressing all kinds

of other social issues, instead of what they promote, but, since they are a private organization, and any other reason

that very few are willing to accept that might be at play here, they did what they did.

 

I guess the social experiment will keep on morphing to infinity to the point that the hippy mantra "anything goes" is

the norm.

 

My critical thinking skills must have gone off the reservation too far, if I have any.

[Mike.357]

No two HCP's sharing a bar will not "automatically" have a shoot out, but yes it will undoubtedly happen.

You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

 

 

do you see what I did there?

Edited May 28, 2013 by Mike.357

[Guest 6.8 AR]

They either lose money when outside companies can't support the BSA's anti-gay views, or they'll lose money if and when chartered organizations (Latter-day Saints, Methodist Church, etc) decide to leave because they they can't support the BSA decision to allow gays. 

 

To me, based on everything I've read here and elsewhere, this appears to boil down to money. With that being said, the way I see it, either the pro-gays are going to force them to lose money by way of pressuring outside donors (UPS, for example) to stop funding the BSA, or the anti-gays are going to bring in additional money to offset the lost revenue due to the lack of outside donors. The money is going to have to come from somewhere. Now it's just a matter of which side wants it more. You can't turn back time, and the pro-gay side isn't going to simply disappear, so the anti-gay side better start raking in the dough. Sadly, organizations like the BSA can't sustain on morals alone. 

Okay, but the pressure didn't need to be there, in the first place, did it?

 

Ah, forget it. Keep on using the word "gay" as something as other than what it is. Until you understand the difference,

this argument will go nowhere. You have only classified another group of Americans by their sexuality, and ultimately

allowed their persistent victim hood status. Sexuality, not gender. There is a difference.

[RobertNashville]

So just encourage it, further. Yeh, that's sound policy. You don't see the condoning of sexual activities in a supposedly

non-sexual organization to be a problem, rather to accept it by saying it has been going on for years? That's not

rational, but you tried to rationalize it, anyway.

 

When someone says something like "Oh, it's been going on for years," the intellectual argument got left on the doorstep.

I thought the idea of discouraging any kind of sexual activities would be the way one would approach this for the

betterment of the organization. that's what ruined it for future scouts. They now have the burden of addressing all kinds

of other social issues, instead of what they promote, but, since they are a private organization, and any other reason

that very few are willing to accept that might be at play here, they did what they did.

 

I guess the social experiment will keep on morphing to infinity to the point that the hippy mantra "anything goes" is

the norm.

 

My critical thinking skills must have gone off the reservation too far, if I have any.

Frankly, I don't think "intellect" gets used very much (sorry if that offends anyone) when it comes to homosexuals.

 

How does allowing "gay" boys into scouting (remembering that the prohibition against gay boys is fairly recent) encourage "gay sex"? If allowing homosexual boys in scouting is equivalent to condoning gay sex does allowing heterosexual boys in scouting condone heterosexual sex?

 

If anyone in scouts is engaging in sex then they need to be disciplined; not because it might be "gay sex" but because it's SEX 

Edited May 28, 2013 by RobertNashville

[TripleDigitRide]

They either lose money when outside companies can't support the BSA's anti-gay views, or they'll lose money if and when chartered organizations (Latter-day Saints, Methodist Church, etc) decide to leave because they they can't support the BSA decision to allow gays.

To me, based on everything I've read here and elsewhere, this appears to boil down to money. With that being said, the way I see it, either the pro-gays are going to force them to lose money by way of pressuring outside donors (UPS, for example) to stop funding the BSA, or the anti-gays are going to bring in additional money to offset the lost revenue due to the lack of outside donors. The money is going to have to come from somewhere. Now it's just a matter of which side wants it more. You can't turn back time, and the pro-gay side isn't going to simply disappear, so the anti-gay side better start raking in the dough. Sadly, organizations like the BSA can't sustain on morals alone.

Ah, forget it.

Yeah, there's probably no need to keep this going. We're all pretty set in our opinions on the subject. The chance of changing anyone's mind is slim to none, so this whole thing is going to continue going in circles.
Peace.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Frankly, I don't think "intellect" gets used very much (sorry if that offends anyone) when it comes to homosexuals.

 

How does allowing "gay" boys into scouting (remembering that the prohibition against gay boys is fairly recent) encourage "gay sex"? If allowing homosexual boys in scouting is equivalent to condoning gay sex does allowing heterosexual boys in scouting condone heterosexual sex?

 

If anyone in scouts is engaging in sex then they need to be disciplined; not because it might be "gay sex" but because it's SEX 

You keep on asking the same questions over and over again, expecting different results? Your last sentence is what

I have been saying, Robert. That didn't need the policy change/whatever, that it got to solve that problem. You also

used the words "gay sex" together, finally, and that is what the word "gay" implies. Huge difference instead of using

it as a casual aside, especially in place of it's earlier use as "happy".

 

Since neither should be allowed, why imply one over the other? Using that descriptive word implies that.

[RobertNashville]

You keep on asking the same questions over and over again, expecting different results? Your last sentence is what

I have been saying, Robert. That didn't need the policy change/whatever, that it got to solve that problem. You also

used the words "gay sex" together, finally, and that is what the word "gay" implies. Huge difference instead of using

it as a casual aside, especially in place of it's earlier use as "happy".

 

Since neither should be allowed, why imply one over the other? Using that descriptive word implies that.

Whether you use the word "gay" or "homosexual" is immaterial; the words both signify the same thing today - if you want to argue about whether they should have become synonymous you won't get an argument from me but the that battle was lost at least a couple of decades ago.

I don't agree that "gay" or "homosexual" implies "sex" any more than "heterosexual" implies "sex"; they identify (not imply) what sex a person finds sexually attractive/desirable.  Homosexuals find people of the same sex attractive to them; heterosexuals find people of the opposite sex attractive. In both cases, "heterosexual" or "homosexual" does not equal sex or the sex act.

 

The only reason the BSA has to identify one now is because the chose to do that a while ago...they should have never ventured down that road in the first place but they decided to do so anyway when they decided to preclude homosexual boys from scouting.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I never once used the word homosexual, since, I agree, it means the same thing, Robert. The point I have been trying

to make, evidently to no avail, is that the issue should have never been forced on the institution. It is supposedly a

non-sexual organization and I don't understand why it needed to be addressed by using a sexual definer as some kind

of class descriptor when none should have been allowed. Radical political people caused this and I seriously doubt it

is the talk of a gay couple at the dinner table, or in the sack.

 

But talking around in circles won't solve this argument.

[Fourtyfive]

I opened this thread for general discussion , I now wish I had not. I suppose if I had not done it someone else would have but it was not my intent to create strife and ill will between the forum's members. My apologies to those with disinterest or disgust ; if I knew how to lock it , I suppose I would.