DOES OUR CONCEPT OF MANILINESS MATTER?

[scoutmomma]

OGE, thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it.

[Nessmuk]

Alright-- My point is that both homosexuality and the pedophilia were considered deviant and perverse - at a time when our nation and even world's values were stronger as a whole.

 

Due to erosion of those values over time by some calling themselves "progressives" and more people/society turning away from God and attempting to replace Him with worldy sciences (including pyschology) and all that "feels good" homosexuality has evolved into being accepted by larger numbers of people. It's called "normalization of deviance" and it happens at all levels..

 

What I am predicting is that if the trend continues, pedophilia (for now largely considered deviant -like homosexuality was) will be next.. Note that there are "real" organizations promoting it. - Likely to grow larger and more powerful with more deviance being widely accepted. You can look at a time in history when the homosexuals were in a similar situation as pedophiles in terms of acceptance.

 

They may be the next "low" on the slippery slope..

 

I was just listening this morning to Dr. Dobson and that prompted me to check this thread (for I too had not intended to return).. He was discussing the laws going into effect in California this year on sexual indoctrination of children there from 6 YO up..

 

In the language they actually erase the definition of sex from being male/female and replace it with sexual orientation.

 

Check out SB777

Excerpts from http://www.rescueyourchild.org/The_Problem.html

 

SB 777 PDF effectively promotes transsexual, bisexual, homosexual indoctrination of schoolchildren by requiring changes to all school instruction and school activities.

 

This law isn't about sex education. When fully implemented, SB 777 will affect everything on campus -- classroom instruction, instructional materials, textbooks, guest speakers, handouts, videos, sex education, drama, music, school assemblies, sports teams, homecoming games, school proms, school clubs, and much more.

 

There is no opt out for parents. In fact, to "opt out" of SB 777, you would have to "opt out" of the entire school day. As stated above, when fully implemented, SB 777 will affect everything on campus -- classroom instruction, instructional materials, textbooks, guest speakers, handouts, videos, sex education, drama, music, school assemblies, sports teams, homecoming games, school proms, school clubs, and much more.

 

(End excerpt)

 

I checked out the PDF of the legislation.. Reading through it - This is scary stuff. I can not imagine my first grader being exposed to this insanity and I am thankful I do not live there, but who knows when my state is next??

 

Bringing this all around:

I see the SAME THING GOING ON INSIDE THE BSA . People espousing ideas like Scoutmomma's may not be "organized" with meetings and plans and plots with their like-minded buddies in other units..Ala 50's style Communist meetings..but they are steadily pushing their perverted ideas and philosophies at any chance they get - Pushing us to a Canadian Scouting approach (which will eventually lead to the death of the BSA as an effective and meaningful values-based movement).

 

Some of these folks may be well-intentioned Scouters and not intend to destroy the BSA from within - just "be open and accepting" of anything - and some may actually wish to see the death of ANY values-based standards in our society - That's a telltale component of the sickness of modern "liberalism".

 

Either way - I am just writing all of this (not to win their hearts) but to point them out for what they really are - so others in our movement who "have wondered" will not be timid in challenging them an their shameless attack on the timeless values we must continue to fight for.

 

I have been criticized for my use of the word "attack"... Is not a major hack into our nation's or government's IT infrastructure considered an "attack" ?-- No one dies, but it is an "attack".. Are the terms "cyber-war" and "econonomic war" not meaningful? Is there no such thing as a "hostile take-over" in the corporate world?

 

So the ostrich-like stance stating "no deaths or combat" = "no war" and therefore proclaiming the current "cultural war" does not or could exist is weak.

 

Listening to readings of Lincoln's speeches this morning on the radio makes me think of the last time a cultural and economic war led to combat in our nation.

 

I would rather understand and exclaim what we are potentially heading towards in order to avoid it if possible - as opposed to pretending it does not exist.. I mean this in terms of a potential great death of the values-based BSA or some "larger scale cultural war" going high order...

[OldGreyEagle]

So Nessmuk, you have associated scoutmomma with a whole bunch of things here, from moral decline to the communists of the 50's. I didnt connect the dots the first time, so you will have to do so for me. And I am sure others would appreciate it as well. THen again I may be the only one not seeing it, so if others want to help me out understanding it thats fine as well

[scoutmomma]

My goodness, I had no idea I was such an evil person.

 

Again, this goes far beyond simply "agreeing to disagree."

[scoutmomma]

Regarding California's SB777, here is the actual language of the bill:

 

http://tinyurl.com/yv8vse

 

Also, here is a blog with a more balanced view (from either side):

 

http://tinyurl.com/yqe9qf

 

To hear the left tell it, it just protects kids from discrimination so they can learn. To hear the right tell it, it should be bill number 666 and mandates that kindergardeners be indoctrinated with the homosexual agenda. Most likely the truth lies somewhere in between...I only skimmed over the bill, but it doesn't look like it says teachers must teach what it means to be homosexual, transgender, bisexual, etc. Or that they must teach that it is good. It just says you can't discriminate based on these things.

 

[Nessmuk]

OGE I was using those things as analogies and examples to make a point - not associating them with the other poster. Maybe (i.e I dunno) MommaScout is one of those well intentioned folks I mentioned that just does not realise the long term consequences in our society of being accepting of deviants in our society and the BSA.. Either way, her acceptance of it chips away at the core (in addition to the rest whether intentionally or just out of ignorance (not knowing))..

 

Scoutmomma - I didn't call you "evil" so don't try to side-step the main points by making it look like you have been personnaly attacked . You have not - Your position has. I am waiting for something substantial like.. "The reason I think homosexuality is good or OK or whatever for the nation and the BSA is..." The reason pedophiles are not the next likely group demanding acceptance is.... o" or " It's not a slip down the slope but an improvement, because ...."

 

 

[packsaddle]

Nessmuck, just a quick note for you to file somewhere. Gays are already in BSA. I know this. More are joining all the time. There is nothing that can stop them. They are good leaders and pose no risk whatsoever to the boys. I know this as well.

You just don't know about them. Here's the good part: BSA policy is the reason you don't. BSA's effective policy of 'don't ask, don't tell' makes this outcome inevitable. But as such, it also quietly condones the status quo as long as the status quo is itself quiet.

Here's the really, REALLY, good part: YOU are part of the reason BSA has this effective policy. And this is one of my most delicious ironies of all time. Bon Apptit

[Nessmuk]

So, Packsaddle -- You write that as if I did not know that.

So you talk about leadership .. What gauge do you use to decide ( I guess you know them all?) that they are "good leaders".

 

Does that include being a "good example"?

 

Tell me why you think that "lifestyle" represents a morally straight and morally strong example for our boys? Answer that please. What basis do you use to decide that it is a positive (not even neutral - but positive) example?

 

Example: 'OJ' was a great football player.. Does that write-off double murder? (remember he was aquitted). Being aquitted is sort of like don't ask/don't tell. Even aquitted - still a good role model?? Someone you admire as a positive model? Absolutley ! If I use the logic and standards that you are applying. What is the basis of your statement about risk? Do you know the statistics of abusive relationships (gay vs straight). or the same comparative stats on drinking / drug issues? If he can teach how to start fire by rubbing two sticks, does thatexcuse all else?

 

Here's the really, really, really , really good part. The ones that are in Scouting have to be in an environment where they are constantly reminded that their 'choice' is wrong - or at least considered unnatural and unaccepted. Which will likely continue to cause them to always question why they are living like this - and many of them probably do every day..

 

This (BSA) may be their best chance to be saved - Not by someone shouting at them about how bad they are, (because they are not 'bad'- they are sick - and need help.) They may have an experience or a sharing of faith that might point them back on track.

 

If the BSA accepts them openly and condones the lifestyle, the BSA will not survive. It couldn't because it will be a very different organization. The examples and precedents to draw from are abundant.. Scouting will survive however in a reborn movement dedicated to the core values abdandoned by the old one.

 

So DADT and letting them stay covertly may help turn the tide by converting more back to being morally straight - and by at least having one organization that will not bow to hedonism and the "all accepting" society that comes with it.

 

Ever see the pain on a liberal's face when they listen to a gay that goes back straight and evangelizes about it like being dead and coming back from hell. I've read of such stories and heard interviews on the radio. Same thing happens with abortionists and women who have suffered from it and have renounced it.

 

 

[packsaddle]

Nessmuck, so....DID you know that already? Because if you did know that already, you also know the futility of your rants. BSA doesn't even agree with you. It seems that your energy would be better spent trying to reconcile your opinions with BSA first.

 

In this unit lifestyle isn't an issue BECAUSE lifestyle isn't on display. As many others have noted so often, lifestyle isn't an element of the program.

 

All good leaders try to be knowledgeable of the program and the methods and skills. They are interested in the growth and well-being of the boys and always are ready to listen and teach. Whether these leaders are gay or not is irrelevant. Like I said, I know for a fact that these leaders pose no threat whatsoever to the boys in any way related to lifestyle. We need good leaders, they are good leaders, and the boys like them.

 

Personally, if lifestyle WAS on display it wouldn't bother me, my children, nor, I suspect, most of the boys in the unit. But lifestyle isn't on display for whatever reason, perhaps because of the "don't ask, don't tell" thing. Whether someone is gay or not just doesn't enter the picture at all and we don't obsess about it.

 

YOU obsess about it. And since you acknowledge that it is out of your control, I wonder why the obsession?

 

And no, I've never met anyone who evangelized about ANY aspect of being dead and coming back from hell ESPECIALLY to my family. (you do understand that in my opinion, 'hell' and 'Satan', for that matter, are myths?)

[Hiromi]

I fully understand Packsaddle, that when you say that life-style is not a part of your BSA program. But we are dealing with boys - who are often pretty obsessed with all things sexual. They are looking for answers and models of conduct.

 

I don't hate people - and my Church mandates that I love all God's children. But if someone's lifestyle is at odds with the beliefs of a community, and that community has a values organization in place to promote and nurture those values, don't you think a problem might arise?

 

Also- if a scoutmaster was openly an apostate - he probably would have no chance being a scout leader in many units whose CO was a church group. So I guess don't ask don't tell applies to Atheists as well. How about members of organizations promoting the relations of men and male youth? How about a don't ask don't tell about members of the Communist party or KKK? How about openly pro-abortionist scout leaders?

 

I was pretty excoriated a month ago by a forum moderator for not upholding the scout oath by not adhering to the letter of the scout oath and following the guidelines for scouting. How is hiding one's life-style scout-like?

 

When Scoutmaster Ken invites his friend Steve along on a campout and the discussion gets going along the lines of faith, or sexuality, or politics, or you name it - can't you imagine an interesting situation developing? So the boys are all in their tents thinking to themselves- I wonder what act Scoutmaster Ken and his buddy Steve are performing this instant? It kind of wreaks havoc on the term buddy system.

 

I think that your assertion that BSA has already become Canadian under the radar and just pretending to be towing a Texan party line is troubling. I say once again- let everyone come out of the closet and choose sides and make their own scouting organizations and stop all the sneaking around and pretending to be a movement in name only.

 

The radical liberals can gleefully pronounce the inevitability of so called progress and that the new normal will include transgender relations, trans-age relations, trans-species relations, and a socialized egalitarian neutered utopia like Denmark.

But you wont see it in promotional materials why not?: Because of the fear of losing Neanderthals like Nessmuk and Pappy??

 

Pappy

(This message has been edited by Pappy)

[DanKroh]

Wow.

 

I've been trying to think of a way to respond to some of the...uh...stuff being said here, especially as a member of several of those groups that Nessmuk labeled as "cesspools of socialism and humanism besides being a bunch of handwringers".

 

"To assert homosexuals are not deviants (and are merely differently wired versions of heterosexuals) simply ignores the extreme lifestyle of perversion and promiscuity of homosexuals."

 

As opposed to the perversion and promiscuity of some heterosexuals. I'm curious what this extreme lifestyle entails. Here's the "homosexual lifestyle" I see in the vast majority of the homosexuals I know; maintaining a home, loving a partner or spouse, raising a family, supporting their community (which includes a church for many of them), and most of the other mundania that heterosexuals deal with.

 

"Ever see the pain on a liberal's face when they listen to a gay that goes back straight and evangelizes about it like being dead and coming back from hell."

 

Nessmuk, that pained look comes from the recognition of the amount of self-loathing and self-denial that a homosexual person has to possess in order to denounce themselves and "go back straight", not to mention the future damage to their psyche that such prolonged denial causes. And that sad little head shake comes from the knowledge, supported by research and statistics, that such denial will eventual crash in on them.

 

And Pappy, I gotta ask, what exactly are "transgender relations", and what makes you think they aren't already considered "normal"? Many, many couples involving transgendered people look absolutely no different from cis-gendered heterosexual couples, short of a very personal medical exam. The constant dropping of the transgender label is getting tiresome, especially when you seem to have very little knowledge about the subject.

[Hiromi]

I think this wikipedia article does a pretty good job of explaining the defition and history and issues of normalizing trangenderism and identity around sexual orientation.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender

 

 

But the issue, ladies and gents, is in the "normalizing" of things. If we make everything ok, then what does not become "OK" are the faith traditions that do in fact discriminate about appropriatness.

 

A value-judgement-free world with its laws that mandates to protect it becomes a world at odds with a "timeless values" world view - i.e. scouting and many faith traditions and one could argue The United States and its founding principles which invoke authority from God.

 

So it is the radical left that is playing games and trying to change the rules and the realities- not the conservatives.

 

Red State/ Blue State Scouting seems to be manifesting itself pretty clearly on this and a few other threads of late!

 

I say we encourage this discussion among the District Round tables and Committee meetings of PAcks and Troops and Crews across the nation. Hold on to your packsaddle- it's going to be a bumpy ride!

 

Pappy

(This message has been edited by Pappy)

[DanKroh]

Thanks for the link, Pappy, but you didn't answer my question, which was what you think "transgender relations" are?

[Hiromi]

DanKroh,

 

I am not an expert on this issue of transgender. And I found the Wikipedia article very educational.

 

But I do have a problem with identity politics. It lends itself to balkanization. And I have noticed that many groups make their particular sexual orientation the focus of their identity. I think this is troublesome.

 

You also mentioned that heterosexuals can exhibit sexual deviance. I agree- sexual deviance is pretty universal. But an open adulterer is as much of a problem to a community of scouters as would be a Homosexual player. They are a destabilizing influences on the formation of normative values a community comes around such as marriage an sexual abstinence.. An open adulterer- or a closeted adulterer- whether Homo or Hetero is a pariah and should be unwelcome to an organization promoting contrary values.

 

I know that you have written about all the seemingly normal everyday varieties of homosexuals who lead lives like most normal heterosexuals but the exponents of the hedonism found in many clubs would probably not put themselves in this category.

 

Come out and say it --DO you want scouting to be open and admitting of gays or not? But the idea of norming this behavior is ridiculous: IT IS abnormal by its very definition.

 

So what we are really advocating is a boy scouting that would have no moral ground to say that boys who buddy up shouldnt participate in friendly behavior such as mutual masturbation- oral and anal relations, and group antics. After all- there is no harm done if it is consensual, right?

 

This is what this is all leading to. Why shouldnt a boy want to satisfy himself with another boy especially if the other boys are willing to reciprocate the actions?

 

And what of the boy or boys who are left out of all the fun?

 

This is itself a huge Pandoras box. (No pun intended to Pandora).

 

 

Pappy

 

[packsaddle]

Dan, it seems to me that most of the handwringing is being done by Pappy and Nessmuck right now, heh, heh. Anyway, pretty much everything at the university has a cesspool kind of look to it, from time to time, so I'm OK with the analogy.

 

I have raised the transgender issue several times and no one seems to have a response so I think most of us see transgender as a non-issue. Hypothetically, let's say that I decide that I need to undergo the procedures for any particular reason (and I think I claimed earlier that if I did, I'd be a knockout:)). Let's say that ole Pappy or Nessmuck found me to be as attractive as I know I'd be and decided to, you know, hook up. And I agreed.

Would that violate BSA policy? Would BSA insist on a karyotype, just to be sure, for membership? While the chromosomes would definitely be male/male, the physics would be well within the behavioral parameters, right?

Heh, heh, I just love this policy stuff.