How about a pertenint question?

[OldGreyEagle]

"Bob, you really need this tool."

 

Gee Acco, I didnt know your name was bob

[evmori]

OGE,

Yeah I know. But ya gotta admit, there are times when his posts are down right impossible to read! And I was actually responding to the stapler guy's post!

 

Bob,

Sorry for the shot. I meant no disrespect.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Eagledad]

>>Barry, as your probably know, psychologists really don't care much about what is "normal."

[Backpacker]

First of all this was not a pertinent question in the first place because it is an all white or all black question with no gray middle of the road, which is the reality of our world today. This thread was nothing more than Bob throwing more flamebait out there to incite others and he was successful, turning scouters against each other for no good reason,typical.

 

The BSA has its policy set and probably will never change unless forced to by legislation, court case, or a significant loss of revenue. This is more than choosing between a gay trained leader or a straight untrained one, it touches some to the core of what they believe is moral or is immoral. Bob is probably chuckling to himself over the disharmony he has created, you do not have to lower yourselves to his level.

[Eamonn]

Hi acco40,

If Ernie was still alive he would be in his high 80's or maybe even his 90's.

I'm unsure what acceptance there was in his time for homosexuals? Other than Quentin Crisp and a few others who were mainly in the arts, homosexuals were not as open as they seem to be today.

I have no idea what sort of relationship Ernie had with these Nephews. I knew and was great friends with several men who never married and much preferred the company of other males. I never thought of them as being homosexual, in fact sex was never talked about.

There may well be leaders in the BSA who are aware of their attraction to members of the same sex, but never act or follow these feelings or urges. I don't know if these people are homosexual or not?

I have been very happily married for going on 23 years and have never discussed my sex life with any of our youth members, in fact I think I have never discussed my sex life with any of our adult members. Ernie was much the same, whatever he did in his bedroom was his and he didn't share it with anyone. His reasons for doing this were also his.

At this time the rules of the organization that we choose to belong to state that avowed homosexuals are not welcome. A gay lifestyle is not the example that we want to set before our Scouts. However just as there isn't any uniform police there are no bedroom police.

Eamonn

 

[DugNevius]

>>First of all this was not a pertinent question in the first place because it is an all white or all black question with no gray middle of the road, which is the reality of our world today. This thread was nothing more than Bob throwing more flamebait out there to incite others and he was successful, turning scouters against each other for no good reason,typical.

 

The BSA has its policy set and probably will never change unless forced to by legislation, court case, or a significant loss of revenue. This is more than choosing between a gay trained leader or a straight untrained one, it touches some to the core of what they believe is moral or is immoral. Bob is probably chuckling to himself over the disharmony he has created, you do not have to lower yourselves to his level.

 

 

AMEN to that.

 

This is not a "pertinent" question. It is an attempt at both starting an argument as well as the direct insinuation that homosexuals are bad. Then, at the same time, getting offended at those offended by bigotry. That seems odd. There are a lot of levels of bigotry but it all stems from the same two things, ignorance and fear. Sexism, racism and homophobia are ALL forms of bigotry. To leave the BSA if their policy against the homosexuals were to change, regardless of whether or not any homosexuals would have any contact with your troop is bigotry. To make claims that there is a direct correlation between homosexuals and abuse is ignorance. To say "I dont mind homosexuals, i know a few, but i would never want them around my kids because the are a bad influence." is fear and bigotry, and not really that different from saying "I dont mind black people, I know a few, but i would never want them around my stuff because they may steal it." Blanket statements are ignorant, but they seem to be used frequently in arguments against homosexuals in BSA to support the case against them, even if its not outwardly, its still insinuating. Homosexuals are a bad influence. Why? Because they will try to turn kids into homosexuals? Because they will try to touch the kids? neither of these are true statements at all. Not all homosexuals are evil, just as not all priests or presidents are evil, but some people are accepting one blanket statement while resenting the others. Foto's point seems to be, if you are going to classify homosexuals are bad influences and threats to the moral fiber of the youth, THEN you must also hold catholic priests to that same ignorant standards and not allow your sons and daughters to be influenced by them, because a few touched boys and girls.

 

There is some accepted bigotry in our society as of late. Prejudice isnt the clear loud force it was before. Now its become subtle but just as potent.

 

[Bob White]

First

I realized the typo after the post was sent and I was unable to get the subject line to change.

 

Second,

If you have no knowledge to share on the topic the trend here seems to be to attack the poster, as recent posters voluntarily have displayed for us.

 

Third,

Pertinent means relevant, related, or important. It has nothing to do with being black and white, or middle of the road, as an example... Messages which are written only to insult me are not pertinent to the topic of this or any other thread.

 

Lastly,

I have not insulted or attacked a single person on this forum, yet a poster has suggested that if the BSA changed its rules I would leave my wife and take on an alternative lifestyle. Another has claimed that my father, a long time ordained Deacon in the Catholic Church before his death, is as guilty as the priests who abused children since as a "worker bee" he must have known about abuse and just didn't report it.

 

So if you are looking for new lows to sink to...new standards have been set on this forum by these two that I think you will find difficult to match.

 

So if it is not asking to much discuss the threads, debate the topics, debate vigorously if you choose. But the personal attacks are uncalled for. Choosing to berate my family is cowardly.

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Backpacker]

 

I have not attacked you or your family, rather call to task the relevance of your question to scouting, for it has none. All that has been accomplished in this thread is a sad exhibition of the prejudice and intolerance that is alive and well in our society and in scouting. IMHO this thread should have been closed long ago, for it serves no useful purpose.

 

Bob, to answer you directly let me quote another poster in another thread you were disagreeing with,"I will not get down into the mud to wrestle with a pig."

 

[Rooster7]

Whose company would you prefer?

 

An alcoholic who's fighting to remain sober or his buddy who wants to take him out drinking?

 

A repentant homosexual or his pseudo-intellectual neighbor who wants to justify deviate sexual behavior so he can feel better about himself?

 

Personally, I prefer the alcoholic or the homosexual over those who would cause them to stumble, even celebrate their behavior - because it conforms to their own godless standards.

 

[evmori]

Bob,

Why do you refuse to answer your own question? I think we all would like you take on this.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle]

Ok, as much fun as this has been, rather than pull this plug now, tell you what. I will close this thread early Sat before I leave for the Troop service project early saturday so get your last thoughts in, hopefully focused on the topic and not each other.

 

[acco40]

Oh great. Thanks OGE, I work best when given a deadline!

 

Rooster, is someone unrepentant if he feels he has done nothing wrong?

[evmori]

OGE,

If you are going to lock this thread I would suggest it be after Bob answers his own question.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Trevorum]

I think Rooster is using the word "repentant" in a different sense than would I. For example, I can't see myself referring to a "repentant albino" or a "repentant ADHD".

[Proud Eagle]

I don't know how to even start answering this question.

 

To begin with the question is a false dicotemy.

 

We have no idea if the homosexuals are trained leaders or not. Bob makes no mention of the homosexuals having training or not, yet everyone seems to assume they are trained.

 

On the other hand, everyone is assuming the untrained leaders are running a poor program. They may have been mentored by excellent trained leaders, have read the relevant materials, maybe even watched all the films, but just never have been qualified as a "Trained" leader.

 

Also, untrained leaders can become trained leaders.

 

It is unlikely, though possible, that the homosexual leaders will become... well.... non-homosexual.

 

Next, we don't know quite what it means that these leaders are homosexual. Does this mean they are emotionally attracted to those of the same sex and want a romatic relationship with them? Does it mean they are physically attracted to others of the same sex and seek such a relationship? Does it mean they are currently engaged in a romantic or physical relationship with another of the same sex? While I would rather not know the answers to those question, I must assume since we know they are homosexual that those items may come into play.

 

Why exactly do we know these people are homosexual? Are they making a big deal out of it? Sex doesn't really fit in well with Scouting, yet we somehow know these leaders are all homosexual. Quite odd.

 

So, again, we don't really have enough information to make a choice.

 

However, why not make a third option sense this argument is based on a logical falisy in the first place. Why not start a third unit with trained leaders who may not all be homosexual?