Future BSA President Intent to Eliminate the Ban on Gays

[SeattlePioneer]

Surely NAMBLA is just the next frontier of "bigotry" and "discrimination" to be overcome by the sexual liberation movement. The usual and accustomed political methods will be used to overcome objections to that form of natural born sexual appetite.

 

I don't doubt that in another twenty years the same kinds of attacks on BSA will be made on BSA for it's "intransigence" in endorsing this particular form of sexual expression.

 

There is, after all, no real place for that political movement to stop.

[NJCubScouter]

Peregrinator, I'm not familiar with the terminology, but I can see how that might sound creepy. But as you say, that is presumably not how the senator said it.

 

Seattle, that's only true if you can't distinguish between child-molesters and non-child-molesters. (Sorry for the unscientific terminology there, but everybody knows what I mean.) Personally I think the distinction is pretty clear, and will remain clear.

[SeattlePioneer]

Children already have the power to consent to sex in many cases, and the Supreme Court has decided that young children are competent to consent to surgery such as abortions --- it's a small step to giving children a right to have sex with adults.

 

Just follow the arguments used by homosexuals over the years. There's really no place to stop that is defensible if you accept the basic "rights" argument of the sexual liberation movement.(This message has been edited by seattlepioneer)

[NJCubScouter]

Seattle Pioneer:

 

Just follow the arguments used by homosexuals over the years. There's really no place to stop that is defensible if you accept the basic "rights" argument of the sexual liberation movement.

 

Personally I've never heard of the "sexual liberation movement." What is it? What I have heard of is gay people saying "please stop discriminating against us." (Well actually before that, they used to have to say "please stop beating us up and killing us", but hopefully our society is past that.) And I see no reason to say no. The laws of my state, and a number of others, say yes, discrimination against gay people is wrong. And we are talking about gay adults here. So, sure, there's a place to stop that's defensible. Ending discrimination against people based on what other adults they are oriented towards, does not mean that you accept behavior that is harmful to other people, including children who are legally incapable of consenting.

 

I suppose you could argue that once you accept that some people have sex outside of marriage (regardless of gender), there's no place to stop that's defensible before allowing all kinds of other behavior. Why isn't THAT the line? And yet the BSA has no blanket prohibition on leadership positions for those who are known to have had sex outside marriage. I am sure that somewhere there is a single mother who is a den leader and it is known around town that she has never been married, and yet the BSA leaves it up to the local unit to decide whether she should be a den leader. And yet if another woman is openly living with her partner, she can't be a den leader, even if the CO wants her as a den leader and every parent in the den agrees. It's wrong, as in immoral. It's senseless. And it will end, eventually.

[AZMike]

"Getting back to New Jersey State Senator Ray Lesniak -- who by the way I have met and who is a very-long-time member of the New Jersey legislature -- I don't think you (AzMike) should be throwing around terms like "NAMBLAesque". (NAMBLA, if anyone doesn't know, is the "North American Man-Boy Love Association.") The term "gay boys" is perhaps not one that lands gently on the ear, and I probably would not use it, but since a "boy" technically is someone under the age of 18, a person under 18 who is gay could, I guess, be called a "gay boy." I don't think the senator meant it in a "creepy" way as you claim. I will tell you what I do think is a little creepy though: When you read of someone making a most-likely innocent reference to "gay boys" in the context of opposing discrimination against them, and it makes you (AzMike) immediately think of NAMBLA and of the titles of gay-oriented child pornography videos or web sites. I don't know the names of any gay-oriented child-pornography videos or web sites, but evidently you do."

 

Lesniak may well be a good person, and probably he made a bad choice of terminology, and as you say, I doubt he meant it to be taken in a creepy way, but that's what it is. I would object to his (and your) sexualizing a child by referring to him (or her) by a term that refers specifically to a sexual act. That's inappropriate.

 

I'm obviously not the only one who was made uncomfortable by Lesniak's use of a sexual term in describing a minor, nor the only one who thought it sounded like "gay-oriented child pornography," as you phrase it, based on the many comments in the media on his phrasing. One need not be familiar with the titles of gay porn (although anyone who ever watched Monty Python would probably associate the term used by Lesniak with the title of a porn magazine owned by a pervert referred to in a Python sketch) not to be dismayed by Lesniak's bizarre choice of phrase.

 

One would have to live a life as cloistered and removed from the modern world as Rebbeca of Sunnybrook Farm NOT to recognize the term used by Lesniak as one that is common in gay porn, as you acknowledged. It is a sign of the sexualization of children within popular culture, and the normalization of such identification, that is part of what made Lesniak's comment so obnoxious, even as he probably did not realize the extent to which such sexualization has colored his view of the world, and of what are acceptable ways to refer to children.

 

I appreciate the fact that you are, as you claim, innocent of the ways of gay-oriented child pornography, as well as the fact that most gays would cringe and recoil with disgust at you for linking the words "gay" and "child pornography" as you have done. You know what NAMBLA is, so I find it a little far-fetched that you have never heard the term "gay boy" used in the context of someone who wishes to molest boys. As someone who should have at least a moderate acquaintance with youth protection, you might need to educate yourself on such things. If you would want to combat evil, you need to know something about how it works.

 

 

[packsaddle]

"I appreciate the fact that you are, as you claim, innocent of the ways of gay-oriented child pornography, as well as the fact that most gays would cringe and recoil with disgust at you for linking the words "gay" and "child pornography" as you have done. You know what NAMBLA is, so I find it a little far-fetched that you have never heard the term "gay boy" used in the context of someone who wishes to molest boys."

 

Well, I haven't been cloistered and I'm going to guess I've heard or read the term 'gay boy' maybe 5 times in my life, at lease in the context it's being used here - and I'm not even sure about that for that matter - most of them (now) from this thread. It isn't exactly the kind of thing that gets thrown around a lot in this area but then I'm evidently completely ignorant of child pornography...which I'm pretty sure, if your description is correct...that I'd need to be quite familiar with in order to remotely recognize those titles as being FROM that kind of stuff. And I do know what the NAMBLA acronym stands for. OK, I think I'll wash my hands now.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[NJCubScouter]

One would have to live a life as cloistered and removed from the modern world as Rebbeca of Sunnybrook Farm NOT to recognize the term used by Lesniak as one that is common in gay porn, as you acknowledged.

 

Well, knit me a bonnet and call me Becky, I guess. But I know it now, I suppose. Isn't it interesting, that the place to go to learn gay terminology is this very forum, and the teachers never seem to be the anti-discrimination folks.

 

As someone who should have at least a moderate acquaintance with youth protection, you might need to educate yourself on such things. If you would want to combat evil, you need to know something about how it works.

 

Actually I should have a lot more than a moderate acquaintance with youth protection, and I think I do. I am a Certified Youth Protection Training Facilitator, though nobody gets asked to do much facilitating anymore now that national changed the rules so the course has to be taken online before a leader submits their application (in our council, you had to take the course in person the first time before national made that change.) I pretty much knew the old video by heart, and they DID mention pornography as a form of "grooming", but for some reason the BSA didn't feel the need to give any details about the contents. I don't see any reason to know about it myself, and I'm pretty sure I know enough about youth protection -- as I said, I hope so, otherwise there are 60 or 70 people walking around with ineffective YP training.

 

Hey Pack, don't use up all the soap.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

[SeattlePioneer]

>

 

 

I'm sure NAMBLA would say exactly the same thing. Imagine the idea of people being locked up and beaten up because of their NATURAL sexual impulses!

 

The basic motivation of the sexual liberation movement is "If it feels good, do it."

 

The basic motivation of traditional natural law regarding sexuality is using ones sexual parts for their intended purposes, which contemplates the reproduction of children.

 

I understand that this distinction has been lost after being the norm in western civilization for nearly 2000 years.

 

 

 

[packsaddle]

"If it feels good, do it."

 

Show me the cub scout or boy scout group that doesn't adhere to this...with no leaders present. For that matter (applied to food, drink, etc.) it is probably true for a lot other people of any age. Why are you so hung up on sex? Sex! Sex! Sex! This forum, more than anything else, seems to revolve around sex, sex, sex. What's with the obsession about sex?

[johnponz]

This thread about the BSA President eliminating the ban on gays really took a wrong left turn somewhere.

[Peregrinator]

Show me the cub scout or boy scout group that doesn't adhere to this...with no leaders present.

 

Of course children adhere to it ... it is the job of adults, including scout chiefs, to get them away from that mode of thought. "To do a good turn for somebody every day" - "To help others at all times" ... these stand in radical opposition to the motto of the sex liberation movement "if it feels good, do it."

[AZMike]

"Personally I've never heard of the "sexual liberation movement." What is it? What I have heard of is gay people saying "please stop discriminating against us.""

 

Unless of course you quietly express your own beliefs, or simply pray in their presence:

 

[NJCubScouter]

AZMike, as seems to be the case a lot, I don't know what you're talking about.

 

I did watch the video, and all it tells me is what I already knew: No belief system, nor any group of people, nor for that matter any race, creed, color, religion, orientation or anyone else, has a monopoly on obnoxiousness.

[AZMike]

Paul Ryan released his tax returns today - nice to read that:

 

"The Ryans donated $12,991 to charity in 2011, and $2,600 to charity in 2010. Those contributions went to such groups as the Boy Scouts of America, Junior Achievement, and Women and Childrens Horizons, according to the campaign."

 

[moosetracker]

That's good, because if the rest of us need to give up our social saftey net and pay more in taxes by loosing tax writeoffs like house mortgage, child deductions, college deductions and medical deductions. So that Ryan and Romney and the othe millionaires & billionares can pay $0 in taxes by not only getting the current tax deduction but 20% more on top of that for their PERSONAL income (not buisness) meaning they have chose to take this money out of working in their buisnesses..

 

Well, then we will all need to look to survival by the charity handouts of the rich.

 

None of us will see a dime from Romney though, unless your a mormon.. The only charity he gives is what his church EXPECTS all thier members to give.. Not a penny more to them, or to anyone or anything else.

 

By the way talking about taxes.. I guess whatever is in his taxes is so incriminating he just will never show it. I believe he paid 13% or more because he said so and I should "trust him" just as much as he tried to hide his taxes in MA when running for Govenor and wouldn't show his taxes but said he filed those years as a MA resident and we should "Trust him" and he was found out to have lied..

 

I worry he may win, because in order to loose, people need to wake up and follow politics and not decide who to elect based onto the comercials they watch.. Romney can outspend Obama but has sold his soul to the 1 percenters to do it.