LGBT: Critical Mass?

[King Ding Dong]

Many people are celebrating the Stonewall Riots right now as the beginning of the gay rights movement, but the fact of the matter is that there have been modern concerted attempts going back to the Victorian age.

The book "Toward Stonewall" has large free segments on Google books that cover the Victorian movements, which mostly centered on boy love ("boy" in the Victorian sense means "teenager" in the modern), including Germany's first Scouting movement, the Wandervoegel ("migrating birds"). These Victorian movements focused on the beauty of the young male, and the power of homosexual sex in personal development. The feminist Germaine Greer has also written about this in her book The Beautiful Boy.

Gay Swedish publisher/writer Karl Andersson writes about the whitewashing tactic of the contemporary gay rights movement in his book "Gay Man's Worst Friend." Written from his personal perspective of going from gay publishing hero to zero for daring to break the image we're all being sold, Andersson explains how the contemporary gay rights movement has basically whittled down gay culture for a straight, voting audience to mean nothing more than "just like you, except with another man." Except, he tells us, that's not right at all.

Both are very interesting reads that can be bought cheap.

 

The critical mass we're at isn't really surprising. It's the product of 40 years of carefully managed whitewashing, image control, lobbying, and opposition demonizing (that last point not without plenty of help from oppositional loudmouths) toward a political ends of gay rights. Young people's concept of homosexuality has been shaped by a political machine, and that aptly. The issue is no longer engaging to me, it is (as your lunch crowd agreed) pretty much over.

What will be interesting now is seeing how long it takes for age of consent laws to be weakened and repealed, because at the same time we (as a society) have been learning not to judge people who pick up boys for sex in locker rooms and write Top 40 hits about it, we've ironically become much more conservative about teen sex (or maybe I should have said "wisely" rather than "ironically"--it depends on how much credit you give the average guy.)

Of course Sasquatch is real. I see him on the Jack Links commercials all the time.

 

http://www.jacklinks.com/the-wild-side/commercials.aspx

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Look at the bright side: public schools can again sponsor Scouts, California police & fire can get re-involved with Learning for Life. Research biologists understand that the incidence of homosexuality increases as an area increases past its carrying capacity -- one of Gaia's pressure relief valves. We need to be very careful we (hetereo) don't treat gays as our forefathers treated post Civil War freed slaves

Look at the bright side: public schools can again sponsor Scouts, California police & fire can get re-involved with Learning for Life.

 

Not until atheists can join.

[Sentinel947]

Sorry Brew, I'm not going to go out on the extreme with you. Social progress is like this with a few steps forward and a step back, moving in lurches and not with predictable steadiness. I understand that some people oppose equal rights for certain groups of people. Some of these opponents even believe that their religious beliefs have legal relevance. Of all of our contemporary social topics, Jesus is quoted most often speaking about money. If he was as worried about homosexuality as today's conservatives would like to believe, I think that he would have had more to say about it.

 

Despite all of the hype by Christianists about protecting the institute of marriage, Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians. Some of those folks should look at gay people getting married as true conservatives and not religious zealots. I think that parents raising children in families with two parents in a stable and committed relationship is a good thing. I don't care if it sometimes happens that some of those parents are gay.

King Ding Dong: I always assumed he was Excommunicated. But looking at the actual facts, he was last married in 2000, and became a Catholic in 2009. The Catholic Church probably doesn't recognize his previous marriages. To Catholics, there is a difference between what the Government says is a marriage, and what we consider Holy Matrimony, (Marriage). I would be assuming (Which means I don't really know the answer) that the Church doesn't recognize his earlier marriages since it didn't have a part in them. (He was a Southern Baptist at the time.)

 

 

 

Wikipedia says that his previous two marriages were considered annulled. (However there are no citations, so I can't verify the accuracy of the claim.) I'm not sure if he pulled some strings, or if that's common practice to annul old Marriages from people who convert to Catholicism and want to Marry a Catholic.

[ghjim]

Humanity has undergone more change in the last 100 years than it's first 10,000 years of existence. That rate of change has also increased during that time. The basic problem arises when that speed of change occurs without opportunity to assimilate the changes and what that may mean for the future. I'm thinking the eventual problem lies in the fact that humanity will collapse due to being overwhelmed by this problem. One cannot wake up every morning not knowing how to function in a world that is far different than yesterday. Critical mass is a good way of describing the process. I have no idea where we are in the process, but there is an increasing tempo of life that was never part of the human experience in the past. How long the species can tolerate that is anybody's guess. Evidence of this is already being experienced in the stress that seems so prevalent in the more "advanced" societies of the world. Ask anyone today whether they like the way things are and are going or would they want, if possible, return to a more simpler life.

Isn't that the point that was made in the book "Future Shock" by Alvin Toffler.

[Peregrinator]

Now I know some republican governments are going back to only teaching abstinence in the high school health ed classes.. Which mean there high schools will need those daycares' date=' especially as they make abortions harder to get.[/quote']

 

Do you have any empirical data to suggest that abstinence-only sex education leads to more out-of-wedlock pregnancy than comprehensive sex ed, condoms, morning-after pills, and abortion?

[walk in the woods]

Well, wrong, to say "no" teenager is an absolute. All absolutes are false by definition. Next, this particular page is poor at best. First, there are no labels on the grids for the data other than teen pregnancy rates. What does a rate of 165 mean? Is that 165 pregnancies in 100,000 teens or 1000 teens? Second, there a really big assumption written into the first graph estimating the numbers of pregnancies that end in stillbirth or mis-carriage. Anytime there are estimates there are biases. Third, the graphics do little to explain states like WI, ND and NE which have low rates and no mandated programs. The article also doesn't address why CA is in the third highest rate category even though it does have mandated, medically accurate, no mention of religion sex ed. The cited article does nothing to deal with other possible cause/effect relationships such as the general state of education in those states, poverty rates, etc. Political web sites on both extremes are laughable.

[moosetracker]

Ok 99.9% of teenagers will not follow some uptight prissy conservative view, be it their parents or teachers.. 99.9% will learn in the locker rooms that which is not discussed in home & school but it will have added to it some childhood imaginations, and being passed around through rumors & innuendos will not be given out correctly.. I guess somehow you were hatched as an adult and never went though any teen years so are not aware that teens do not listen to adults.. So you got through to .01% of your teenage kids.. Celebrate.. What is going to happen to the other 99.9% of them who are ill prepared???

 

Do these states have a worse education system and more poverty.. I would imagine they do.. They are Republican states, so those state governments should work on those problems also.

 

I would hang my hat on these statics over Rick Perry forcing Abstinence only education in Texas because "it worked for him"... Maybe the fact that he is a male unable to become pregnant had something to do with it.. and "yes" not having sex works, it is just it is unrealistic to believe the kids will do that, and when they don't they are unprepared to protect themselves from it.. Our schools do not teach sex and promiscuity and here is your condoms and birth control pills.. They teach a balance of it all, respect for yourself, respect for your body, making sure you are mentally ready, withstanding peer pressure.. These lessons do not have to be rolled up in religious scripture to be taught.. But then we respect our teens enough to know that at some point they will take that big step, and here is what you need to know when you do..

 

The Republican "Big Government" rules and regulations are just being voted in.. We will know in a few years when the Northern states teen pregnancy keep going down and the states with these new regulations start to rise up..

[packsaddle]

Well, wrong, to say "no" teenager is an absolute. All absolutes are false by definition. Next, this particular page is poor at best. First, there are no labels on the grids for the data other than teen pregnancy rates. What does a rate of 165 mean? Is that 165 pregnancies in 100,000 teens or 1000 teens? Second, there a really big assumption written into the first graph estimating the numbers of pregnancies that end in stillbirth or mis-carriage. Anytime there are estimates there are biases. Third, the graphics do little to explain states like WI, ND and NE which have low rates and no mandated programs. The article also doesn't address why CA is in the third highest rate category even though it does have mandated, medically accurate, no mention of religion sex ed. The cited article does nothing to deal with other possible cause/effect relationships such as the general state of education in those states, poverty rates, etc. Political web sites on both extremes are laughable.

"All absolutes are false by definition."

 

Except, of course, for this one, heh, heh.

[packsaddle]

Ok 99.9% of teenagers will not follow some uptight prissy conservative view, be it their parents or teachers.. 99.9% will learn in the locker rooms that which is not discussed in home & school but it will have added to it some childhood imaginations, and being passed around through rumors & innuendos will not be given out correctly.. I guess somehow you were hatched as an adult and never went though any teen years so are not aware that teens do not listen to adults.. So you got through to .01% of your teenage kids.. Celebrate.. What is going to happen to the other 99.9% of them who are ill prepared???

 

Do these states have a worse education system and more poverty.. I would imagine they do.. They are Republican states, so those state governments should work on those problems also.

 

I would hang my hat on these statics over Rick Perry forcing Abstinence only education in Texas because "it worked for him"... Maybe the fact that he is a male unable to become pregnant had something to do with it.. and "yes" not having sex works, it is just it is unrealistic to believe the kids will do that, and when they don't they are unprepared to protect themselves from it.. Our schools do not teach sex and promiscuity and here is your condoms and birth control pills.. They teach a balance of it all, respect for yourself, respect for your body, making sure you are mentally ready, withstanding peer pressure.. These lessons do not have to be rolled up in religious scripture to be taught.. But then we respect our teens enough to know that at some point they will take that big step, and here is what you need to know when you do..

 

The Republican "Big Government" rules and regulations are just being voted in.. We will know in a few years when the Northern states teen pregnancy keep going down and the states with these new regulations start to rise up..

"Do these states have a worse education system and more poverty.. I would imagine they do."

 

Hey, you're slamming my region here. Remember what it felt like to have your state motto poked fun at? Besides, it's all in your imagination, remember? But even if it isn't, I like the wretchedness of my region. I don't want them to improve but rather I want it just like it is and to stay like this for a long time. I admit my reasoning is selfish but this allows me to visit third-world countries with great ease. I get off the plane and feel right at home...no adjustment needed. So go ahead and cast your aspersions, at least WE have legitimate cuisines, lots of them. What do YOU have? Lobster? Syrup?

[moosetracker]

We got chowda very tasty too... And our lobster & syrup is good too, so don't knock it until you've tried it.. Now let's discuss your hominy & grits... Yuuck.. You can keep it.

 

Although packsaddle I think your statement is done tongue in cheek, I will have to say, I am glad you are proud of your states desires to act like a third world nation, because it seems your government is striving for that effect. The hole is not big enough let's dig a little deeper.. We don't have enough poor, let's make more poor or make the poor poorer.. We have a poor education system, what can we do to make it worse?.. We have high teenage pregnancy... How can we make it higher??

 

 

All I'm saying is if not only a poor health education in schools is the cause of your high teen pregnancy, but also having a subpar education system in general and more poverty.. Well that is not an excuse for why you should be let off the hook for a higher teenage pregnancy rate.. All 3 of those things plus others may contribute.. But, you have not named anything that is out of your control.. In fact it is caused by your government.. So, if your proud of it great, but also be proud of all the teenage mothers your states actions produce.

 

 

[packsaddle]

We got chowda very tasty too... And our lobster & syrup is good too, so don't knock it until you've tried it.. Now let's discuss your hominy & grits... Yuuck.. You can keep it.

 

Although packsaddle I think your statement is done tongue in cheek, I will have to say, I am glad you are proud of your states desires to act like a third world nation, because it seems your government is striving for that effect. The hole is not big enough let's dig a little deeper.. We don't have enough poor, let's make more poor or make the poor poorer.. We have a poor education system, what can we do to make it worse?.. We have high teenage pregnancy... How can we make it higher??

 

 

All I'm saying is if not only a poor health education in schools is the cause of your high teen pregnancy, but also having a subpar education system in general and more poverty.. Well that is not an excuse for why you should be let off the hook for a higher teenage pregnancy rate.. All 3 of those things plus others may contribute.. But, you have not named anything that is out of your control.. In fact it is caused by your government.. So, if your proud of it great, but also be proud of all the teenage mothers your states actions produce.

 

I'm with you on that chowda! And the lobsters and syrup are just fine as well. But if you want to experience a real cuisine you'll join me in New Iberia next time they have the world championship gumbo cookoff...for a week or so of all kinds of wonderful cuisine statements, not just the gumbo either. Yes, you have a few noteworthy things by virtue of your natural resources but with the exception of the clams, you've done almost nothing truly creative with it like we have with just about everything we've brought to the region from all over the world. I mean it. Come to New Iberia and find out what 'cuisine' really means.

 

In comparison, with respect to food, New England=boring.

 

 

 

Now about that other stuff. Tongue in cheek is NOT part of the cuisine. What the heck do you think the civil war was intended to do? Yes, I know it was all about slavery but slavery was merely a means to an end. And THAT was to PRESERVE a system in which a very few rich people could suck the life out of a whole lot of poor people. Third World! But the South lost that war so it had to find another way to keep that way of life alive. And it doesn't matter which political party is dominant here. The democrats were just as bad before the Republicans discovered how powerful prejudice could be. It's still a good-ol'-boy system that favors the few and pretends all sorts of things while it preserves all kinds of social and economic inequities. I grew up in it. I know it well. I've observed many of the changes personally. The thing is, if you keep people ignorant enough, just enough, so that they can still doff spindles (for example) but have no idea what benefits they might have from forming unions (for example), those workers will also support that wretched status quo. The privileged few knew this long ago and they still know it. It's one of those unspoken things that you will only hear an admission of from, say, the guy down the road who is an open racist. Those ideas are not dead. They're just simmering deep down like the really tasty stuff in an unstirred gumbo.

 

But this IS the South. And if you go to many places in the third world, you'll find very similar social and economic structures (not to mention roads and bridges). So living 'here' makes it really easy to visit 'there'. I know the 'score'. I have an innate understanding that helps me avoid mistakes. And for that, I'm thankful. (plus, I have a really good 'sense' for where there might be some other great cuisines to sample, here and there, yum!)

[moosetracker]

We got chowda very tasty too... And our lobster & syrup is good too, so don't knock it until you've tried it.. Now let's discuss your hominy & grits... Yuuck.. You can keep it.

 

Although packsaddle I think your statement is done tongue in cheek, I will have to say, I am glad you are proud of your states desires to act like a third world nation, because it seems your government is striving for that effect. The hole is not big enough let's dig a little deeper.. We don't have enough poor, let's make more poor or make the poor poorer.. We have a poor education system, what can we do to make it worse?.. We have high teenage pregnancy... How can we make it higher??

 

 

All I'm saying is if not only a poor health education in schools is the cause of your high teen pregnancy, but also having a subpar education system in general and more poverty.. Well that is not an excuse for why you should be let off the hook for a higher teenage pregnancy rate.. All 3 of those things plus others may contribute.. But, you have not named anything that is out of your control.. In fact it is caused by your government.. So, if your proud of it great, but also be proud of all the teenage mothers your states actions produce.

 

I like some of your cuisine but must admit I can take the real spicy stuff.. If I can't taste the food and all I can do is sweat and drink water, no thank you..

 

Funny about your insight into why the South like to keep their poor and ignorant, poor and ignorant.. I was going to throw out a remark close to what you have stated, but I think I would have had the Southern backlash for it.. It is best it came from a fellow Southerner... I will just state that I agree with your assessment..

[Scouter99]

Ok 99.9% of teenagers will not follow some uptight prissy conservative view, be it their parents or teachers.. 99.9% will learn in the locker rooms that which is not discussed in home & school but it will have added to it some childhood imaginations, and being passed around through rumors & innuendos will not be given out correctly.. I guess somehow you were hatched as an adult and never went though any teen years so are not aware that teens do not listen to adults.. So you got through to .01% of your teenage kids.. Celebrate.. What is going to happen to the other 99.9% of them who are ill prepared???

 

Do these states have a worse education system and more poverty.. I would imagine they do.. They are Republican states, so those state governments should work on those problems also.

 

I would hang my hat on these statics over Rick Perry forcing Abstinence only education in Texas because "it worked for him"... Maybe the fact that he is a male unable to become pregnant had something to do with it.. and "yes" not having sex works, it is just it is unrealistic to believe the kids will do that, and when they don't they are unprepared to protect themselves from it.. Our schools do not teach sex and promiscuity and here is your condoms and birth control pills.. They teach a balance of it all, respect for yourself, respect for your body, making sure you are mentally ready, withstanding peer pressure.. These lessons do not have to be rolled up in religious scripture to be taught.. But then we respect our teens enough to know that at some point they will take that big step, and here is what you need to know when you do..

 

The Republican "Big Government" rules and regulations are just being voted in.. We will know in a few years when the Northern states teen pregnancy keep going down and the states with these new regulations start to rise up..

I love a partisan--liberal or conservative--so blind that they can't see things that stare them right in the face. California, Illinois, West VA, Colorado, Kentucky, Delaware and Washington, DC have rates as high (and higher in DC and Delaware's cases) as most "Republican" states.

Even the idea of "Republican" and "Democrat" states is silly; party platforms are not static, and electorates are not static. 10 years ago Virginia went Bush, now it went Obama; etc etc all over the country. Those "Republican" states that are bright red at the bottom of the map? 40 years ago they were "Democrat" states.

 

What your map shows to anyone with an iota of objectivity is that teen pregnancy rates are not a matter of party politics; in fact, for 8 years of Bush II's presidency, federal policy was abstinence-only and rates continued to fall. What the map shows is that a wide variety of factors effect teen pregnancy rates from race to economic to culture.

[DWise1]

Admittedly, this thread has wandered far away.

 

Stupid question: You have a member's parent who is in a deeply committed relationship. What do the exact particulars of that relationship have to do with his being a Scouter?

 

What really does sex have to do with Scouting? Please answer that first for different-gender sex. Nothing whatsoever, right?

 

So what does same-gender sex have to do with Scouting? Nothing whatsoever, right?

 

So just what is the difference supposed to be? Huh?

 

Here is a basic principle that we had to make maximum use of while I provided training services during my official expulsion for atheism: A parent is always welcome to a meeting involving his own child. So gay parents are always welcome, including in den meetings and on campouts.

 

And if the gay parent has a practical skill to teach, then what? Ignore that valuable resource? Or make use of it? Again harking back to the Penn and Teller Bullshit! episode on BSA, there was a campout set up with gay and non-gay scouts in which, as I recall, the gay scouts out-performed the non-gay scouts. So you ignore what the gay scouts have to teach you?

 

As for the issue of sex education, I remember a memorable quote from the then-Governor of Mississippi (AKA, "missisloppy" by those, like myself, who had been stationed there) in the mid-to-late 1990's. He was a strong advocate of educational reform. In support for his position on education reform, he said: "We have already tried ignorance, so we know that that does not work." So now the Republicans are doubling down on ignorance -- it didn't work then, so it won't work now either.

 

[walk in the woods]

Well, wrong, to say "no" teenager is an absolute. All absolutes are false by definition. Next, this particular page is poor at best. First, there are no labels on the grids for the data other than teen pregnancy rates. What does a rate of 165 mean? Is that 165 pregnancies in 100,000 teens or 1000 teens? Second, there a really big assumption written into the first graph estimating the numbers of pregnancies that end in stillbirth or mis-carriage. Anytime there are estimates there are biases. Third, the graphics do little to explain states like WI, ND and NE which have low rates and no mandated programs. The article also doesn't address why CA is in the third highest rate category even though it does have mandated, medically accurate, no mention of religion sex ed. The cited article does nothing to deal with other possible cause/effect relationships such as the general state of education in those states, poverty rates, etc. Political web sites on both extremes are laughable.

Was wondering who'd call me out on that one .