Boy Scouts Allow Gays

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There's no strife here, just disagreement. It is a topic worth discussing. Last time I checked, you didn't

have to be mad to disagree.

[TripleDigitRide]

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.

Don't sweat it. Most of us are adult enough to understand that not everyone is going to share the same opinions, especially on such a hot topic. I definitely don't agree with some others on this topic, but there are no ill feelings towards those who don't agree with me.

[Mike.357]

 

 

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

 

what will solve this argument?

[Mike.357]

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.

 

 

nah nah man.   It is all good.   I would hope this thread has not created ill will.    I sincerely hope we are adult and able to separate internet from real life.  Heck I have broke hamburger meat with 6.8 and he has since vouched for a few of you all. I bet we would all get along famous in person.

[daddyo]

what will solve this argument?

 

This issue is based on ideology, which is the reason that it stirs such deep emotions in all of us.

 

Liberals and Conservatives and Libertarians don't agree on anything because when it comes down to a difference in ideology, no one is willing to budge or give an inch. That's why our representatives can't get anything done.

 

I'm not sure there is a solution, only one side winning and one side losing.

[RichardR]

what will solve this argument?

Folks keeping their sexual preferences to themselves? Instead of announcing it publically & demanding everyone "accept" them as "normal"?

[TripleDigitRide]

what will solve this argument?

Folks keeping their sexual preferences to themselves? Instead of announcing it publically & demanding everyone "accept" them as "normal"?

Or everyone "accept" them as "normal" so they don't have to announce or demand anything. :p
Edited May 29, 2013 by TripleDigitRide

[RichardR]

Or everyone "accept" them as "normal" so they don't have to announce or demand anything. :p

Well if homosexuals didn't go around telling everyone that they were homosexual, no-one would know or care, the problem is that they always seem compelled to grab the nearest bull-horn & make their personal lives public service announcements for some odd reason.

[TripleDigitRide]

Or everyone "accept" them as "normal" so they don't have to announce or demand anything. :p

Well if homosexuals didn't go around telling everyone that they were homosexual, no-one would know or care, the problem is that they always seem compelled to grab the nearest bull-horn & make their personal lives public service announcements for some odd reason.

That's all fine and dandy until you invite your coworkers over to the house for a cook out. While he and his boyfriend sit down at the dinner table and tell you they are thinking about getting married.

[daddyo]

Or everyone "accept" them as "normal" so they don't have to announce or demand anything. :P

 

I'm sorry. I truly am. But I can't do that, because it's not normal to me.

[RobertNashville]

How about you just try "accepting"...not as "normal"; just accepting???

 

I don't consider homosexuals "normal"...as a way to live life I don't find it healthy or appropriate.  At the same time, they have an absolute right to live their lives as they see fit so long as they allow me to do the same.

[RobertNashville]

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.

I guess I am missing your point; I guess I see this as a chicken or egg problem.

 

The BSA is at least a much to blame for their situation when the saw fit to specifically disallow homosexuals form scouting; that change was almost certainly brought about by one, dare I say radical special interest group putting pressure on them to adopt the policy.

 

Now they change their policy obsessively because of from a different radical special interest group.

 

I find both special interest group's tactics equally disgusting and the BSA's response to both also disgusting.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well if homosexuals didn't go around telling everyone that they were homosexual, no-one would know or care, the problem is that they always seem compelled to grab the nearest bull-horn & make their personal lives public service announcements for some odd reason.

and it isn't even all of them, but a select few radical ones.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Or everyone "accept" them as "normal" so they don't have to announce or demand anything. :P

Yeh, you give up your principles so someone else can feel good about themselves. Life can be all about

give and takes, but that just looks like taking by someone else. It's up to them to feel however they wish.

Not my job.

[Fourtyfive]

Thanks for the kind words , I feel better about it all now.

 

So just to get this thread back into a gun forum type discussion ; I must have to say I consdier Hi-Point pistols rather gay looking.  :hiding:

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I guess I am missing your point; I guess I see this as a chicken or egg problem.

 

The BSA is at least a much to blame for their situation when the saw fit to specifically disallow homosexuals form scouting; that change was almost certainly brought about by one, dare I say radical special interest group putting pressure on them to adopt the policy.

 

Now they change their policy obsessively because of from a different radical special interest group.

 

I find both special interest group's tactics equally disgusting and the BSA's response to both also disgusting.

The Boy Scouts just wanted to be the Boy Scouts and the gays wanted in. And that's disgusting?

Regardless, they caved, anyway.

[RobertNashville]

The Boy Scouts just wanted to be the Boy Scouts and the gays wanted in. And that's disgusting?

Regardless, they caved, anyway.

Gay boys wouldn't have needed to "want in" if they hadn't been excluded in the first place - BSA's policy of excluding them is the first thing I find disgusting.

 

Why did the BSA, decades after it formed, create a policy to deny these boys from their ranks when they didn't have such a policy beore? Why should the BSA care if a boy is gay or straight?  What possible impact does that have on teaching boys what scouting has to teach them?

 

Yes, the fact that the BSA caved is disgusting but no more so than having the ridiculous policy in the first place.

Edited May 29, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Fourtyfive]

[URL=http://s1356.photobucket.com/user/mrssr/media/35gcpr_zpscbc958fe.jpg.html][/URL]

[RichardR]

Gay boys wouldn't have needed to "want in" if they hadn't been excluded in the first place - BSA's policy of excluding them is the first thing I find disgusting.

Why did the BSA, decades after it formed, create a policy to deny these boys from their ranks when they didn't have such a policy beore? Why should the BSA care if a boy is gay or straight? What possible impact does that have on teaching boys what scouting has to teach them?

Yes, the fact that the BSA caved is disgusting but no more so than having the ridiculous policy in the first place.

Homosexuality wasn't banned in the BSA earlier because it was already illegal in most States & considered a mental disorder by mental health professionals, so it was already de-facto.

Once it was starting to be "taken off the books" in various States as both a criminal offense & was declassified as being mental disorder in 1973, the BSA had to decide an official policy on whether or not to allow "openly gay" Scouts.

[RobertNashville]

Homosexuality wasn't banned in the BSA earlier because it was already illegal in most States & considered a mental disorder by mental health professionals, so it was already de-facto.

Once it was starting to be "taken off the books" in various States as both a criminal offense & was declassified as being mental disorder in 1973, the BSA had to decide an official policy on whether or not to allow "openly gay" Scouts.

Really? Homosexuality is/was “illegal”? Care to name a state where that is or was true?? I’m not an expert on each state’s laws but I suspect that what you are actually referring to are old, outdated and repealed (or ignored) sodomy laws that declared certain sexual ACTS as crimes (oral sex, anal sex to name two). Being homosexual (attracted to the same sex) has never been “illegal” any more than being a heterosexual any more than "thinking" about punching an asshole in the nose is NOT illegal; actually punching the asshole in the nose IS). And as a matter of law, the sexual acts courts included under these laws applied EQUALLY to homosexuals and heterosexuals (although no doubt their primary use, as evidenced by how they were applied, was clearly to go after homosexuals). More to the point, what possible difference could the existence or absence of these laws have on the BSA or any other organization where sexual acts are absolutely not permitted and have no place EVER?

“Mental Disorder”…yes, homosexuality was defined as a mental disorder but no longer which is as it should be. However, even if you believe it is a mental disorder and should be classified as such, why did or why should the BSA not have similar prohibitions against all mental disorders as they did about homosexual boys? Why single out one particular disorder and ignore all others? This line of thought also begs the question of how would they know that ANY boy had been “diagnosed” as having the “mental disorder” of homosexuality?

I submit that the BSA adopted its policy against homosexual boys out of unfounded fear, prejudice and pressure from certain religious groups seeking to impose their morality…they’ve now abandoned that policy likely because of pressure from homosexual rights groups. In my opinion, the adoption of the restriction and now that abandonment of the restriction shows a significant lack of character, backbone or any core “moral” beliefs at all within the BSA.

Edited May 29, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Smith]

How about you just try "accepting"...not as "normal"; just accepting???

 

I don't consider homosexuals "normal"...as a way to live life I don't find it healthy or appropriate.  At the same time, they have an absolute right to live their lives as they see fit so long as they allow me to do the same.

Yeah, sounds good on a billboard but they aren't allowing me to live my life the way I see fit and even here some are demanding that I and others change our beliefs to accommodate, approve, and condone their lives. So, just let them live their lives the way they want. I'm the one who has to change?

 

No one was stopping them from having Gay Scouts. They demanded the BSA change to accommodate them.

 

This is the whole issue IMO. Live and let live is fine, but you can't be selective and arbitrary based on personal opinion when conflict arises. This is the problem with Libertarianism when conflict arises. It's either subjective/relative judgment or anarchy.

[TMF]

[the BSA had to decide an official policy on whether or not to allow "openly gay" Scouts.

They HAD to? Says who? There seems to be a lot of suppositions here regarding things the BSA absolutely HAS to do. They don't HAVE to do anything. They could tell the pro-gay lobby to f*** themselves. They could choose to ignore that homosexuality even exists. They could decide that sexual orientation and the subject of is not relevant or appropriate for scouting activities, thus making any policy for or against homo membership moot.

Who is holding a gun to anyone's head here FORCING them to do anything? For those upset with the new policy, you should direct your anger at the BSA, not the folks that wanted the policy changed. The way I see it the BSA either abandoned their convictions under pressure or decided that gay scouts deserved to be in the organization. I would assume that either scenario is unacceptable to those who oppose the policy.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yep, should have stood their ground on this, and they caved, which was due to political pressure that

never should have been there, but you're right, TMF.

[RobertNashville]

Yeh, you give up your principles so someone else can feel good about themselves. Life can be all about

give and takes, but that just looks like taking by someone else. It's up to them to feel however they wish.

Not my job.

What principle am I giving up by allowing people to live their lives they way they want to?  They have no right to tell me how to live and I don't have the right to tell them how to live. As long as that's as far as it goes then my principles need to stay that way, my principles.

 

People do all kinds of things that I don't happen to agree with or like -by my accepting that they have the right to do so, how am I ""giving up" my principles?

[RobertNashville]

Yeah, sounds good on a billboard but they aren't allowing me to live my life the way I see fit and even here some are demanding that I and others change our beliefs to accommodate, approve, and condone their lives. So, just let them live their lives the way they want. I'm the one who has to change?

 

No one was stopping them from having Gay Scouts. They demanded the BSA change to accommodate them.

 

This is the whole issue IMO. Live and let live is fine, but you can't be selective and arbitrary based on personal opinion when conflict arises. This is the problem with Libertarianism when conflict arises. It's either subjective/relative judgment or anarchy.

Really?  They are demanding you change your beliefs? How, exactly, does asking that gay boys not be arbitrarily excluded from scouting require you to change your beliefs?

 

Who here is demanding you "change your beliefs"?  Is it that because someone doesn't agree with your view of homosexuals you equate that with demanding you change your views? Are you "demanding" I change my belief if I don't agree with your view of homosexuals or are you just disagreeing? I'd like to know because if you are demanding I change my beliefs you are out of luck; my beliefs are based on nearly six decades of living, education and experience and I'm not going to change them just because someone on the internet thinks I should. ;)

 

 

No one was stopping them? What do you think this policy change was about???

 

The BSA stopped them from having gay scouts with their policy; that's why they pushed the BSA to change and at the end of the day, I submit the BSA voting members realized they had no good reason for having their policy in the first place.

 

Other than fear and innuendo I've yet to read anything in this thread that demonstrates how allowing gay boys access to scouting in any way diminishes the mission of scouting.

Edited May 29, 2013 by RobertNashville