"... last bastion of anti-gay bigotry ..."

[AZMike]

I'd like to officially petition the owners of this website to change the title of the "ISSUES & POLITICS" forum to "GUNS N' GAYS". It's all anyone talks about on this forum, and pretty much the entire website, anymore. It's become a lot less interesting to visit here.

[qwazse]

Mike - Your bigotry against happy shooters is duly noted. It's really arrogant of you to think anything else is more important.

 

Trev - For every person I've talked to who throws the exclusions into the mix, dozens more have talked to me about this organization with extreme admiration. Our boys?

 

CP - your defining the "ugly" homosexual acts out of the definition of "gay" is as disingenuous as Beav's claims of diversity. We're about as close to naming the sexual orientation of pedophilles as we are to figuring out how to overcome race and class divides among different scouting units. I'll agree with you on this: if the ban had to do with youth being put at risk because of an adult's sexual preference, then I shouldn't be allowed to advise a co-Ed crew.

 

It is odd. My church youth group is more welcoming to homosexuals and athiests than is the BSA, and it falls squarely into the group that CP rants about. Of course the desire to convert is overt, but as long as they put up with it, they are welcome.

[CalicoPenn]

Qwazse,

 

We already can name the sexual orientation of pedophiles - a person's sexual orientation is defined by the sexual relationships an adult has with other adults. If you're an adult male whose adult sexual partners are exclusively women, then you are a heterosexual. If you are a pedo/ephebophile that molests boys but whose only adult sexual partners are women, then you are a heterosexual. That's well defined in psychology and sociology.

 

There are some folks out there that are trying to define pedo/ephebophilia as a distinct sexual orientation - and though they make a mighty splash in the media pool, they aren't making much headway elsewhere.

 

What I find disingenuous is ignoring that most of the molesters of scouts have been heterosexual males so that you can blame gay males as yet one more excuse to try to keep them out of Scouting.

[CalicoPenn]

Double Post(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

[qwazse]

CP: a person's sexual orientation is defined by the sexual relationships an adult has with other adults

 

You might have to update a few Wikipedia references, then. And Webster, for that matter.

 

Just like heterosexuality, homosexuality includes, at least on this campus, older participants grooming younger ones. Their ability to draw the line at age 18 is a mere formality.

 

I'll agree that the molestation threat to our youth comes from those who fail to draw the age line. And, the reality is that those folks don't come to us with warning labels!

 

The ban has little to do with immediate threats.

[acco40]

Okay, everyone get this through your heads - the official BSA reason for the BSA policy on homosexuality is not youth protection, not a guard against sexual molestation - it is because homosexuals (in their eyes) don't make good role models.

 

So, your arguments on this thread are irrelevant. If that is not the "real" reason of the BSA policy, they should state it as such and thus a healthy debate could ensue. But for now, we can only debate the morality of "being" a homosexual. That has nothing to do with molestation and youth protection.

[WasE61]

"the official BSA reason for the BSA policy on homosexuality is not youth protection, not a guard against sexual molestation - it is because homosexuals (in their eyes) don't make good role models."

 

Correction - That was Baden Powell's position in 1910.

 

The cowards in BSA leadership and backwards religious groups that jerk their chains today haven't the backbone to acknowledge that we are all God's children, regardless of how He decided to make us. Or perhaps they just lack the capability of independent thought.

 

Ironically, there is some historical accounts that suggests that Powell himself was gay.

[Beavah]

The cowards in BSA leadership and backwards religious groups that jerk their chains today haven't the backbone to acknowledge that we are all God's children, regardless of how He decided to make us. Or perhaps they just lack the capability of independent thought.

 

Yah, hmmm.... Well, some folks seem to lack da capacity for independent research before makin' sweeping condemnations.

 

I think all of us members of backwards religious groups believe completely that we are all God's children, regardless of either how he decided to make us or what our background and upbringing was that got us to where we are.

 

What we don't believe is that our nature or nurture means that we don't have a responsibility to make good choices.

 

I'm sure that there are some folks with higher genetic predisposition to multi-partner or aggressive sex, or background and upbringing that makes 'em more likely to be abusive in their relationships, or some combination of da two that makes 'em attracted to adolescent boys. All of those are God's children, and we care about 'em. The only difference is that we backward religious types still feel there is an element of personal choice and responsibility, eh? We still feel it's appropriate to promote, as a moral matter, monogamy and faithfulness. We still feel it's OK to suggest that not every natural attraction is one to be pursued, either in or out of the closet. Indeed, some pursuit of natural attraction should be punished, and some should be discouraged, and some extolled.

 

God is a mystery, eh? Some folks get born well-off in liberal America; others get born to starvation in war-torn sub-Saharan Africa. We love 'em all as God's children, but help each to make moral choices despite da challenges or luxury into which they were born.

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

The only difference is that we backward religious types still feel there is an element of personal choice and responsibility, eh?

 

No, the difference is that you "backward religious types" seem to think that anyone who isn't also a "backward religious type" must, somehow, hold a contrary opinion. Or at least that's your own personal problem, Beavah.

[Horizon]

My issue is the accusation that the BSA is the last bastion. There are plenty of churches out there with the same attitude. I don't know other private clubs with similar membership issues, but I would not be surprised to find them.

 

The BSA simply reflects the older, more conservative churches that make up a percentage of the charter partners. We are not a lone voice, we are joined by others.

 

And we should change (but that has been debated already).

[BDPT00]

And here's my issue ...

There are two distinct and opposite viewpoints. Feelings are strong. Just because you might have an opinion different from mine, it doesn't mean I'm wrong. It doesn't mean you're wrong. Accusing an organization for being wrong because they don't share your point of view does nobody any good. It's slinging mud. Doing it in public, directed at an organization you and/or I belong to isn't a worthwhile way to go about leading change. Calling the BSA the last bastion of anti-gay bigotry is a wonderful example of how not to lead change. Find a better way.

BDPT00

[Horizon]

The BSA put us in this by saying that gays aren't moral. That is a value judgement.

 

Saying that we are religious organization, and therefore do not accept atheists is not a value judgement.

Saying that we are an organization that helps boys become men, so girls are not allowed, is not a value judgement.

 

But saying that you can not be a leader if you are gay because that means you are immoral - that is a value judgement.