Boy Scouts march in Utah Gay Pride Parade

[TAHAWK]

My understanding is scouts may choose and design their own neckers.

 

 

A troop may design its own neckerchief and, with Council approval, even wear it as part of the Uniform

 

A troop does not need Council approval to select an official neckerchief and wear it.

 

Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scout of America, Special Regulations, The Necherchief (B.S.A. 2014)

[CalicoPenn]

Mike, There is not one word in the post I had made in an earlier thread that mentions a parade or even relates to a parade - not one single word. Why am I not surprised that you got it wrong.

 

Straight parades? How about the St. Patrick's Day parades in Boston and New York City that refuse to allow gay and lesbian units march? Ever been to a parade with Shriners zipping around on little carpets or go carts wearing fezes? Ever been to a parade with a "precision lawn mower drill team" complete with marchers wearing bermuda shorts and black socks? Or maybe a precision lawn chair drill team? Yeah - you can't get any straighter that that.

 

Are Pride parades political? Sure - in the same sense most parades are - most have politicians marching in them, just like a Labor Day, 4th of July, Memorial Day, or St. Patrick's Day parade - I suppose that makes them political. There will certainly be civil rights groups marching - yep - political - but if the parade were truly political, they wouldn't attract the crowds that they do. In Chicago, this years Pride Parade attracted an estimated 1 million participants and spectators - that makes it the largest parade in Chicago - and it has been one of the two largest parades in Chicago for years (the other is the Bud Billiken Day Parade in September - for the past 10 years or so the Pride Parade would take the "title" of largest parade in June and the Bud Billiken Day Parade would take it right back in September - this year, it doesn't look like that will happen - there was a lot of momentum for the Pride Parade with gay marriage becoming law on June 1st this year).

 

 

One more thing - I never have understood how people who claim to be so opposed to and upset with Pride Parades can go out of their way to search out, download and post pictures from Pride Parades. For some reason the word Repression comes to mind and I don't mean it in the sense of one group of people trying to repress another group of people - I mean it in the sense that someone is trying, and failing, to repress their own emotions and personality.

[Scouter99]

That's my favorite, Calico, anyone who thinks pervs shouldn't go down the road wearing leather thongs must be gay.

I guess since I think SMs shouldn't shower with Scouts it must mean I really want to take showers with Scouts. But that's better than just going ahead and doing it.

[packsaddle]

Heh, heh, the thought just occurred to me...there seems to be only one forum member who is so obsessed with this that he not only visits the sties with these photos...he also downloads them and shares them with us here.You just never know what things dominate the thoughts of other persons, lol. Makes for an interesting forum though.

(BTW, I can show you similar images if you'll visit the local biker bar near my home...and I suspect [but I could be wrong]...that very, very few of them are gay...summer just seems to bring out the best/worst/whatever in us somehow)

[AZMike]

That's my favorite, Calico, anyone who thinks pervs shouldn't go down the road wearing leather thongs must be gay.

I guess since I think SMs shouldn't shower with Scouts it must mean I really want to take showers with Scouts. But that's better than just going ahead and doing it.

 

That's pretty much a fall-back trope of the homophilic left, isn't it? If all other arguments fail, claim that because someone disagrees with the endorsement of homosexuality, that means you must secretly be homosexual, although the poster thinks there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, or, or....at that point their argument falls apart into circular meaninglessness. Or because someone googles the parade that someone else is endorsing, and finds photos of the kind of activity that scouts to which Scouts should not be exposed on the first page that Google returns, that must mean you spend all your time trolling the Internet for such pictures...which aren't at all objectionable, according to the left...or something.

 

You can't object to the content of the photos of the event you endorse, so attack the fact that the photos were posted.

 

It's easier to make such vacuous, sophomoric sniggering defensese than to try to engage with the argument: Why would you trust a scoutmaster (and we're not talking about the risk of molestation by the scoutmaster, we're just questioning his/her common sense) who brought their scouts into such an environment? Why would you trust them to make any decisions regarding safety?

[AZMike]

Heh, heh, the thought just occurred to me...there seems to be only one forum member who is so obsessed with this that he not only visits the sties with these photos...he also downloads them and shares them with us here.You just never know what things dominate the thoughts of other persons, lol. Makes for an interesting forum though.

(BTW, I can show you similar images if you'll visit the local biker bar near my home...and I suspect [but I could be wrong]...that very, very few of them are gay...summer just seems to bring out the best/worst/whatever in us somehow)

 

Would you bring Scouts to an event in that kind of biker bar?

[King Ding Dong]

One would assume the parents know exactly what a Pride parade is and approve of their son marching in it. The other assumption seems to be the SM is attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of the parents and or scouts and take them to something they know nothing about.

[TAHAWK]

False dichotomy. Assume what you will. There are other possibilities.

[King Ding Dong]

True. However if the parents and scouts support marching in the parade why is this a untrustworthy SM?

[AZMike]

Mike, There is not one word in the post I had made in an earlier thread that mentions a parade or even relates to a parade - not one single word. Why am I not surprised that you got it wrong.

 

Straight parades? How about the St. Patrick's Day parades in Boston and New York City that refuse to allow gay and lesbian units march? Ever been to a parade with Shriners zipping around on little carpets or go carts wearing fezes? Ever been to a parade with a "precision lawn mower drill team" complete with marchers wearing bermuda shorts and black socks? Or maybe a precision lawn chair drill team? Yeah - you can't get any straighter that that.

 

And your point is...? How do those activities relate to transvestitism, bondage and domination, and obscene signs displayed in a parade in which Boy Scouts are marching?

 

One more thing - I never have understood how people who claim to be so opposed to and upset with Pride Parades can go out of their way to search out, download and post pictures from Pride Parades. For some reason the word Repression comes to mind and I don't mean it in the sense of one group of people trying to repress another group of people - I mean it in the sense that someone is trying, and failing, to repress their own emotions and personality.

 

"Going out of my way" took about 10 seconds to type in the name of the parade that they boys participated on Google, clicking the images tab, and voila - something is displayed that probably doesn't fit the ideas of gay life that you have presumably formed solely from watching that nice gay couple on "Modern Family" each week.If you feel it is proper to expose young boys to that kind of event, don't you think it is appropriate to spend ten seconds finding out what kind of things are going on in it, CalicoPenn?

 

So because you are both made uncomfortable by the images of the event, you and packsaddle have gone out of your way to set up shop as parlor psychologists and imply that you think I'm a closeted homosexual, in violation of this site's TOS to which you agreed when you signed up. Personal attacks are not allowed.

 

First, you both needn't worry that my attorney will subpoena the site administrator to request your IP addresses for a defamation lawsuit. The courts now hold that implying that someone is a homosexual, or stating that they are a homosexual, is no longer grounds for libel. I also prefer to deal with idiotic personal attacks in the same way you would deal with a similar attack from a 6th grader - the class of person who usually makes that argument. I point out that I am a healthy, normal heterosexual, as I presume you both are, and call upon you to act and write according to the normal standards of adult conduct and maturity that we would expect from you both.

 

Second, why would you have a problem with that if I was?

 

If you have a problem with the idea that I might be a homosexual, closeted or not, what does that make you? A "fag-basher"? A "homophobe"?

 

Or do you have a problem with the idea that I could be a hypocrite? I state that homosexual behavior is wrong and that while one should hate the sin but love the sinner, one should not condone the behavior or hold it up as a standard for a youth leader. Because you are apparently prone to seeing a homosexual hiding in every closet, and because it apparently makes you uncomfortable to see the kind of things that are visible at every gay parade and rally, you conclude that I must be a "closet queer," and so must be a hypocrite.

 

Unfortunately for your argument, that implies that my moral stance is correct. You see, CalicoPenn and packsaddle, we only accuse someone of hypocrisy if the moral stance they are suspected of failing to uphold is moral.

 

Suppose I was a Nazi officer in WWII. I espouse the principles of National Socialism, but secretly feel sympathy for the Jews and work to shelter them and help them escape the country. Would I be called a hypocrite for not living up to the odious ideals of Hitler? Clearly not.

 

Suppose I was an Ayn Rand-style Objectivist who was an atheist and insisted that one should not give charity to those who cannot provide for themselves. But instead, I secretly give my wealth to the poor and indigent and work in a church's soup kitchen in a disguise. Would I be accused of hypocrisy? No.

 

In both cases, I am acting morally, in contradiction to my stated beliefs.

 

A claim of hypocrisy only works if the moral stance that is advanced is a good one. If you claim that I am a hypocrite, you are endorsing the moral righteousness of my stated position.

 

So both of you, drop the outdated 1950s attempts at psychological analysis and act like gentlemen.

 

[packsaddle]

" How do those activities relate to transvestitism, bondage and domination...."

Still laughing....I often see those things in skits at summer camp campfire programs...in some fashion, maybe not the way that creates nightmares for you.

But really, are you trying to shock us with those images? Change our minds? Do you actually think that anyone else is more likely to change their mind than you are? Really?

I don't mind the images. I see that stuff fairly frequently in real life. If it gets something 'off your chest' that's fine. Just sayin'

[TAHAWK]

I do not think he is trying to convince you of anything. One contends for those not committed to the other side.

 

KDD, your question assumes that correct behavior is a matter of contemporary consensus - at least in some relevant group. History is full of behavior that a majority supported, that we now find appalling, and that we assert was wrong when it took place. I need not give examples; they will occur to the reader.

[Peregrinator]

Still laughing....I often see those things in skits at summer camp campfire programs...in some fashion' date=' maybe not the way that creates nightmares for you.[/quote']

You see bondage and domination at campfires?

[packsaddle]

In a stylized manner, tied up, hooked like fish, led around like dogs or donkeys, running through the campfire in underwear, probably not what you have in mind though.

[Scouter99]

I do not think he is trying to convince you of anything. One contends for those not committed to the other side.

 

Indeed, accepting homosexuality as normal means accepting the nastiness on full display at the parades. These people know exactly what a gay pride parade looks like and they think of things like father-son sex roleplay as "diversity" not the perversion that it is. Accepting homosexuality as normal means foregoing any moral stance on the most depraved sex acts because the most depraved sex acts are part of homosexual culture, which they see as no different than a guy dressed like a leprechaun at a St Patrick's Day parade.

If a daddy leading a twink around on a leash is normal then of course they have no problem taking our sons to see it.

 

In a stylized manner' date=' tied up, hooked like fish, led around like dogs or donkeys, running through the campfire in underwear, probably not what you have in mind though. [/quote']

And nothing like what we're discussing but we appreciate your intellectual dishonesty.