How far is too far?

[sherminator505]

I had an interesting experience in one of the regular forums. One of the other posters had this to say:

 

"Well in my opinion, scouts are not going to really like wearing the uniform in public,and around girls, until the powers that be quit making them wear uniforms that look like they were designed by some Gay fashion designer.What ever happened to the normal green uniform,with the sidecap,and Boy Scouts of America over the pocket??Also having the normal looking rank badges,Pocketless sleeves,and boots?? These are trademark scouting gear, not the semi Gay garb of today. I saw uniforms go down hill when the issed that fruity red beret in the 70's.It has never started an upward climb since. I say let REAL scouters design the uniform,THEN we might make some headway in this arena."

 

After a few remarks about this poster's rather liberal use of the word "gay," a second post appeared:

 

Well ******* [name redacted], I was always taught, If the Shoe Fits.......

If You are Gay(I coulda used a multitude of other words for it that weren't near as nice as "Gay"), and offended, Then I hate that for you. Scouting has no place for the Gay culture-it goes against EVERYTHING Scouting is supposed to stand for.Gay tolerance should definitely NOT be taught to Youngsters that many times are not old enough to form an educated opinion of their own. REMEMBER-- Adult Scout leaders are Many times the only MALE adult figure these kids have in their lives.If That offends you-- Sorry about your luck. I HAD a friend in Scouting-- one of the best friends I ever had in my life, that came out of the closet after we parted ways for college-- And NOW he lays rotting in the grave-- a victim of AIDS.NEVER once did he act overtly to any of us, and I stayed loyal in our friendship until his death.never had an inkling he was gay until he was already dying. So I'm not a Gay basher in word, thought, or deed to any of the scouts under my care in my troop.By the same token, I don't promote touchy,feely sympathies for the Gay cause either.

I feel that many kids (from what I've heard them say) view the current uniform as "sissified"-- an accurate idea in my opinion. Everything now a days is "offensive" to someone. Some people make it their life's mission to be offended at least once daily. My point was that in the fashion world Gay designers are known for Garish, needlessly complicated, designs. Such is the uniform of scouting now to many of today's kids. Also the Pricing of gearing up a Scout, like many of the other things in Scouting is UNBELIEVABLE. Scouting is getting ready to price itself out of existance very shortly I'm afraid."

 

It brought to mind a number of questions that I would have for this poster:

 

* If you can think of "a multitude of other words for it that weren't near as nice as "Gay," then isn't that bashing in thought?

 

* By not teaching "gay tolerance," do you mean to say that they should be allowed to form the stunted and derogatory opinion that you seem to have?

 

* If your friend from Scouts, who now "lays rotting in the grave," came out before you parted ways, would you still call him your friend?

 

* Finally, how is it that you decided that both the poster you called out and the designer of the Boy Scout uniform were gay, with absolutely no information to back it up?

 

And now, a question for the group. We may disagree very strongly on a topic, but how far is too far, and how do we keep these discussions civil, no matter how contentious they may be?

[Lisabob]

Good questions, sherminator. Personally, when I read that particular poster's responses, I thought to myself "this guy is an idiot." And so I probably won't put much stock in whatever else he posts. Nor will I bother responding to his posts on that topic because it is clear he's not interested in actual discussion, but rather, that he just likes to toss about ill-informed and needlessly inflammatory opinions on matters that are completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

 

I think there are two things to do. One is to voice objection (which already occurred in the other thread) and then the other is to ignore idiots who feel they're at liberty to make derogatory comments about others. THe same sort of icy silence that might meet such talk if we were all sitting around the campfire together.

 

Maybe it is also reasonable for a moderator to contact the individual and tell them to knock it off.

 

I don't think, however, that it would be appropriate to close the thread or remove that person's posts, based on what was written so far. If he (or she, I suppose) wants to look like an idiot for all the world to see, hey, let him (or her). Readers can be trusted to evaluate for themselves in most cases, I think.

 

 

[NickP412]

I was raised in a conservative christian house, ive never been to fond of homosexuals. however i was taught to be kind....through my parents and the BSA. i think the rules of this forum should be the same of that with the BSA Oath and Law. when i post on this site i remember that a lot of you guys are adults....so everything i say here i think "would i say this to my scoutmaster?" i found that remark not appropriate and i wouldnt say it at scout camp.

 

im not sure what rank he is/was or hold he is but if he is a "Scouter" he should know better ways to communicate his dislike for the uniform, i dont like it but im not going to call it "gay"

 

[xlpanel]

I've heard rumors that the next edition of Websters Dictionary released will include a usage of the word gay - "to express dislike".

 

Meanings of words evolve, he is just using a meaning that is not widely used or accepted by everyone yet.

 

If we locked the words at their original meanings and never let them change, everyone would think he was talking about the uniform "looking happy and joyful".

 

While I do not go out of my way to bash gay people, and normally it is a non issue. But if they set themselves up, you have to take a shot.

 

If the gay person in question is not wearing makeup, girls clothes, or using a pronounced lithp, I wouldn't take any shots. But if they combine any of the above I have no choice.

[sherminator505]

Maybe I should point out that other than the deceased friend, there are no actual established gay people mentioned in the aforementioned posts.

[OldGreyEagle]

so if you see a guy who is wearing make up, girls clothes and has a lisp (or any combination)you feel duty bound or honor bound or something to "take a shot"? What sort of shot? You would insult, berate, vex or otherwise annoy such a person as a matter of principal?

 

 

[ScoutNut]

>>"If the gay person in question is not wearing makeup, girls clothes, or using a pronounced lithp, I wouldn't take any shots. But if they combine any of the above I have no choice."

[Hal_Crawford]

"If the gay person in question is not wearing makeup, girls clothes, or using a pronounced lithp, I wouldn't take any shots. But if they combine any of the above I have no choice."

 

You always have a choice. You can choose to live the Scout Law by being Friendly and Courteous or you can choose to take your shot. Your choice.

 

Hal

[DanKroh]

"While I do not go out of my way to bash gay people, and normally it is a non issue. But if they set themselves up, you have to take a shot. If the gay person in question is not wearing makeup, girls clothes, or using a pronounced lithp, I wouldn't take any shots. But if they combine any of the above I have no choice. "

 

I wonder if that is what Lawrence King's classmate thought, right before he "took a shot"?

 

As far as the OP goes, I have to agree with Lisabob. And I'm still wishing that the "ignore user" function actually worked.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[skeptic]

Perhaps this same question should be transferred to the most current threads relating to our government.

[Lisabob]

skeptic, at least those threads are about politics & gov't. The original thread referenced here was about the uniform.

 

xlpanel, don't be silly, of course you have a choice. To state otherwise is to pretend that you have no self control, or personal responsibility.

 

And by the way, you seem to have bought in to an inaccurate stereotype about how gay people look and act. If that's how you decide who you think is gay, you will be wrong far more often than you will be right.

 

(This message has been edited by lisabob)

[Kawidaphoenix]

While I do not go out of my way to bash gay people, and normally it is a non issue. But if they set themselves up, you have to take a shot.

 

If the gay person in question is not wearing makeup, girls clothes, or using a pronounced lithp, I wouldn't take any shots. But if they combine any of the above I have no choice.

 

 

Man you really screwed up now. These guys are gonna turn on you like a rabid pack of wolves. Just like they did me. Bleeding heart liberals usually run in packs that way. Can't battle for themselves for their convictions, they gotta gang up for the kill.

KP

[sherminator505]

Kawidaphoenix, I suggest that you read the "Religion/Sexuality" topic in Issues and Politics. You will be surprised to learn that a lot of the people who whomped you are actually quite conservative. You might also be surprised to learn that a liberal actually can hold his own (not to toot my own horn, but I consider my exchange with evmori to be a respectful, spirited exchange).(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

[Kawidaphoenix]

Kawidaphoenix, I suggest that you read the "Religion/Sexuality" topic in Issues and Politics. You will be surprised to learn that a lot of the people who whomped you are actually quite conservative.

 

Yeah boy they sure look conservative.

Bleeding hearts ALWAYS have ganged up-- their ideas don't stand merit on their own. They have always used the group "Scream Down" policy to it's fullest. I've noticed by reading various posts, it's the same Ones always doing the ganging up.Just like real life.

[sherminator505]

You know, you sound a lot different when you're not bullying a teenager. Much more subdued. Just an observation.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)