Should the Boy Scouts accept the gheys?

[penultimatestraw 473]

Not sure what this post means, but let me clear it up for ya.

 

MDC claimed nobody cares what a private club does as long as they aren't tax exempt. I threw chum in the water knowing he is too dumb to know about the Augusta dust up. You let him in on that, so now he is frantically trying to figure out how to spin his idiotic position.

Most people wouldn't care is more accurate. Of course gays and gay activists would take exception to such a policy.

[Gepetto 979]

Agree with MDC. The can be bigots with their $ as much as they want.

 

It doesn't make you a bigot to exclude people different from you. I don't play fantasy football with a bunch of women that are ages 60-70, maybe you do?, but that doesn't make me a bigot against them.

[MDC 5,878]

Agree with MDC. The can be bigots with their $ as much as they want.

 

I misspoke yesterday: some people would still care. I personally wouldn't. You want your private club to bar gays - knock yourself out. Just don't ask taxpayers to subsidize you. Pretty simple, really.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I misspoke yesterday: some people would still care. I personally wouldn't. You want your private club to bar gays - knock yourself out. Just don't ask taxpayers to subsidize you. Pretty simple, really.

 

Link to the BSA getting tax money?

[MDC 5,878]

Link to the BSA getting tax money?

 

They're tax-exempt, which means they're being subsidized by tax payers.

[DankNuggs 305]

It doesn't make you a bigot to exclude people different from you. I don't play fantasy football with a bunch of women that are ages 60-70, maybe you do?, but that doesn't make me a bigot against them.

Don't vs wouldn't. To actively exclude anyone based on a preconceived notion is bigotry plain and simple.

 

You seem to be referring to social norms in concluding it isn't bigotry. Excluding contagious ill people is a form of bigotry, but one with perhaps good reason, as such society is cool with it.

[DankNuggs 305]

They're tax-exempt, which means they're being subsidized by tax payers.

You are reaching a bit. But I see your point.

 

Subsidized is a bit strong a word. Direct federal funding would strengthen your case.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

They're tax-exempt, which means they're being subsidized by tax payers.

 

Definition of SUBSIDY

 

: a grant or gift of money: as

a : a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation

b : money granted by one state to another

c : a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public

 

 

Once again, link to the BSA getting tax money?

[DankNuggs 305]

Once again, link to the BSA getting tax money?

He's arguing the fact the govt could have charged more in taxes, and that difference was paid for by taxpayers now or in the future. The problem is that this assumes all money earned is at the discretion of the govt to be taken, which s very far from te limited govt model we have.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

He's arguing the fact the govt could have charged more in taxes, and that difference was paid for by taxpayers now or in the future. The problem is that this assumes all money earned is at the discretion of the govt to be taken, which s very far from te limited govt model we have.

I've made the same point with him.

 

For his position to hold true he must assume all money belongs to the Govt., and by the simple fact the Govt isn't taking money from them he counts that as them taking money from the Govt.

 

I think there is a term for that.

[DankNuggs 305]

I've made the same point with him.

 

For his position to hold true he must assume all money belongs to the Govt., and by the simple fact the Govt isn't taking money from them he counts that as them taking money from the Govt.

 

I think there is a term for that.

Looking at my sig, this is a man the equates govt largesse with morality

[MDC 5,878]

Looking at my sig, this is a man the equates govt largesse with morality

 

Because I think tax increases have to be part of a balanced budget solution, and the BSA should pay the same taxes as any private organization if they're going to exclude members on the basis of sexual orientation?

 

Alrighty then.

[jerryskids 5,172]

Recall the reasons I gave? Homophobia/discrimination are the biggest - perhaps we can change those instead?

Why are those mutually exclusive? I'm struck by the presumptive audacity by some folks (many of whom who aren't ghey) that are so intent on convincing society that there is nothing wrong with being ghey. Maybe, just maybe, some people who are ghey don't want to be ghey? But any discussion of things like prevention or cure are met with vitriolic accusations of bigotry and/or homophobia.

[DankNuggs 305]

Because I think tax increases have to be part of a balanced budget solution, and the BSA should pay the same taxes as any private organization if they're going to exclude members on the basis of sexual orientation?

 

Alrighty then.

I agree with you on this

[Savage Beast 1]

It doesn't make you a bigot to exclude people different from you. I don't play fantasy football with a bunch of women that are ages 60-70, maybe you do?, but that doesn't make me a bigot against them.

 

I wouldn't play fantasy football with any of you cheating Godless b@stards.

 

So I guess I'm a FFtoday fantasy football bigot then?

[penultimatestraw 473]

Why are those mutually exclusive? I'm struck by the presumptive audacity by some folks (many of whom who aren't ghey) that are so intent on convincing society that there is nothing wrong with being ghey. Maybe, just maybe, some people who are ghey don't want to be ghey? But any discussion of things like prevention or cure are met with vitriolic accusations of bigotry and/or homophobia.

I bet most people who don't want to be gay feel that way because of the lack of societal acceptance and discrimination.

 

Aside from religious dogma, what is "wrong" with homosexuality? Increased risk of some STIs? No reproductive capacity? There are plenty of other variants of normalcy to which I don't subscribe, but that doesn't mean those groups should be marginalized so as not to offend my values.

[jerryskids 5,172]

I bet most people who don't want to be gay feel that way because of the lack of societal acceptance and discrimination.

 

Aside from religious dogma, what is "wrong" with homosexuality? Increased risk of some STIs? No reproductive capacity? There are plenty of other variants of normalcy to which I don't subscribe, but that doesn't mean those groups should be marginalized so as not to offend my values.

Why are you talking about "offending values?" Are you intentionally or unintentionally proving my point about accusations of bigotry? And my point about presuming to know what all homosexuals want?

[penultimatestraw 473]

Why are you talking about "offending values?" Are you intentionally or unintentionally proving my point about accusations of bigotry? And my point about presuming to know what all homosexuals want?

Because as far as I can tell, there is no concrete nonreligious reason why some (not necessarily you) think being gay is inherently bad/wrong. Am I using the word bigot incorrectly?

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance

And I have no idea what all homosexuals want, but it is implicit that you think it is akin to a disease which needs to be cured. What reason other than lack of acceptance do you assume some gays would want to change? Should we seek to change those who are discontent with their heterosexuality? I'm talking to you, Mookz.

[jerryskids 5,172]

Because as far as I can tell, there is no concrete nonreligious reason why some (not necessarily you) think being gay is inherently bad/wrong. Am I using the word bigot incorrectly? And I have no idea what all homosexuals want, but it is implicit that you think it is akin to a disease which needs to be cured. What reason other than lack of acceptance do you assume some gays would want to change? Should we seek to change those who are discontent with their heterosexuality? I'm talking to you, Mookz.

Seems like one of us is obstinately devoted to his opinion.

 

I apologize for using the word "cure" -- I am aware that that carries a connotation of "disease," but I couldn't think of a better word.

 

Since I'm not ghey, it is presumptuous to speculate on why people might want to change. That being said: if you believe that "gayness" is a spectrum vs. black/white, I suspect that some people near the middle might be quite confused about their sexuality. Also, procreation is one of the primary (if not the primary) reason that organisms exist; some (like yourself) choose not to do it, but I suspect that others might feel differently.

 

Also, you seem to live in a pollyanna world where one day there will be 100% acceptance of homosexuality. I'm sorry, but that will never happen. We can at best approach an asymptote of acceptance. Heck, we are 50 years into the Civil Rights Act, and many people are convinced that the entire Republican Party hates the negroes.

[DankNuggs 305]

Because as far as I can tell, there is no concrete nonreligious reason why some (not necessarily you) think being gay is inherently bad/wrong. Am I using the word bigot incorrectly? And I have no idea what all homosexuals want, but it is implicit that you think it is akin to a disease which needs to be cured. What reason other than lack of acceptance do you assume some gays would want to change? Should we seek to change those who are discontent with their heterosexuality? I'm talking to you, Mookz.

I think one could argue that one of the primary purposes of life is to create the next generation.

 

In biology when studying populations they generally only care about the amount of females because they are the engine that populates life for the next generation. Males are

less less biologically significant.

 

From that perspective, homosexuality is a biological dead end.

 

That has nothing to do with religion. Religion reacts to this through its own prism, but the crucxt of it has to do with preserving humanity for the future.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Seems like one of us is obstinately devoted to his opinion.

 

I apologize for using the word "cure" -- I am aware that that carries a connotation of "disease," but I couldn't think of a better word.

 

Since I'm not ghey, it is presumptuous to speculate on why people might want to change. That being said: if you believe that "gayness" is a spectrum vs. black/white, I suspect that some people near the middle might be quite confused about their sexuality. Also, procreation is one of the primary (if not the primary) reason that organisms exist; some (like yourself) choose not to do it, but I suspect that others might feel differently.

 

Also, you seem to live in a pollyanna world where one day there will be 100% acceptance of homosexuality. I'm sorry, but that will never happen. We can at best approach an asymptote of acceptance. Heck, we are 50 years into the Civil Rights Act, and many people are convinced that the entire Republican Party hates the negroes.

I guess you missed the part about intolerance in the bigot definition

 

Of course this is speculation from both of us. I don't really think of sexuality as much of a spectrum. Bisexuality is rarely long-lasting, usually serving as a transition point to homosexuality or, more commonly, curiousity in young adulthood. While gays cannot procreate they can adopt, and they can donate their gametes if they want their genes to be passed along.

 

There may never be 100% acceptance of gays, but I don't think we as a society should promote intolerance. In my group of 30+ physicians, there are three openly gay members. We all get along fine. I can't think of the last time I've heard anyone I associate with making homophobic remarks. This contrast to widespread gay bashing when I was growing up, so I think a lot of progress has been made. I guess I'd rather be a pollyanna than a bigoted pessimist

 

To borrow from Phurfur: "When you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will."

[penultimatestraw 473]

I think one could argue that one of the primary purposes of life is to create the next generation.

 

In biology when studying populations they generally only care about the amount of females because they are the engine that populates life for the next generation. Males are

less less biologically significant.

 

From that perspective, homosexuality is a biological dead end.

 

That has nothing to do with religion. Religion reacts to this through its own prism, but the crucxt of it has to do with preserving humanity for the future.

If we are solely concerned about propagating the species, why don't we "cure" the ~50% males in our population? We can maximize growth if we select mostly female embryos and a few males to inseminate them. We also need to promote sexual promiscuity and polygamy.

[phillybear 364]

We all get along fine. I can't think of the last time I've heard anyone I associate with making homophobic remarks. This contrast to widespread gay bashing when I was growing up, so I think a lot of progress has been made. I guess I'd rather be a pollyanna than a bigoted pessimist

 

I find this situation particularly troubling. A group of males that do not call each other fagguts and bust balls in such manner is not mentally healthy and reeks of political correctness, which of course is the most extreme kind of bigotry known. Political correctness is the arrogance to think that you are better than everybody else and that the person being made fun of is not intelligent enough to get the humor and/or is not intelligent enough to defend themselves from a remark. This is a classic case of stifling natural human tendencies which can only end in violence.

[drobeski 3,061]

funny how science is the end all when it comes to debating except ofcourse with homosexuals. Then its beliefs and feelings that matter.

how convenient.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I find this situation particularly troubling. A group of males that do not call each other fagguts and bust balls in such manner is not mentally healthy and reeks of political correctness, which of course is the most extreme kind of bigotry known. Political correctness is the arrogance to think that you are better than everybody else and that the person being made fun of is not intelligent enough to get the humor and/or is not intelligent enough to defend themselves from a remark. This is a classic case of stifling natural human tendencies which can only end in violence.

Some PC is BS, I'll agree. I think most of the behavior in sincere however - it's all about exposure. Once you realize all gays aren't flamboyant lisping pedophiles it's amazing how you can get along. And what about stifling the gays behavior?

 

We are all inherently prejudiced. That is human nature. But it can and should be changed.

[penultimatestraw 473]

funny how science is the end all when it comes to debating except ofcourse with homosexuals. Then its beliefs and feelings that matter.

how convenient.

Educate me.

[phillybear 364]

Some PC is BS, I'll agree. I think most of the behavior in sincere however - it's all about exposure. Once you realize all gays are flamboyant lisping pedophiles it's amazing how you can get along. And what about stifling the gays behavior?

 

We are all inherently prejudiced. That is human nature. But it can and should be changed.

 

Unless you support violence, like I do.

 

Yahtzee.

[MDC 5,878]

I find this situation particularly troubling. A group of males that do not call each other fagguts and bust balls in such manner is not mentally healthy and reeks of political correctness, which of course is the most extreme kind of bigotry known.

 

[DankNuggs 305]

If we are solely concerned about propagating the species, why don't we "cure" the ~50% males in our population? We can maximize growth if we select mostly female embryos and a few males to inseminate them. We also need to promote sexual promiscuity and polygamy.

Because the amount of resources it takes for an offspring to develop into a competant parent for the next generation is quite large in our society... I don't think sexual promiscuity needs any more promotion, and polygamy is maybe a differnt argument but dovetails into the developing offspring discussion...

 

If the offspring isn't capable of providing for the next generaiton it becomes its own dead end...

[NewbieJr 540]

So, what I have learned from this thread is that, if we don't allow gay men to marry or become boyscouts, they will get so frustrated that they will become 'normal' again and start inseminating women, thus ensuring that the species will continue to thrive. Got it.

[jerryskids 5,172]

I guess you missed the part about intolerance in the bigot definition

 

Of course this is speculation from both of us. I don't really think of sexuality as much of a spectrum. Bisexuality is rarely long-lasting, usually serving as a transition point to homosexuality or, more commonly, curiousity in young adulthood. While gays cannot procreate they can adopt, and they can donate their gametes if they want their genes to be passed along.

 

There may never be 100% acceptance of gays, but I don't think we as a society should promote intolerance. In my group of 30+ physicians, there are three openly gay members. We all get along fine. I can't think of the last time I've heard anyone I associate with making homophobic remarks. This contrast to widespread gay bashing when I was growing up, so I think a lot of progress has been made. I guess I'd rather be a pollyanna than a bigoted pessimist

 

To borrow from Phurfur: "When you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will."

It is quite frustrating that you don't read the werds I type; for the 89273648723th time, promoting tolerance and performing research are not mutually exclusive.

 

Regarding the spectrum, the fact that we disagree anecdotally proves my point about the lack of scientific knowledge.

[penultimatestraw 473]

It is quite frustrating that you don't read the werds I type; for the 89273648723th time, promoting tolerance and performing research are not mutually exclusive.

 

Regarding the spectrum, the fact that we disagree anecdotally proves my point about the lack of scientific knowledge.

I don't think you understand; I was mocking the suggestion that I was bigoted without intolerance. The BSA excluding gays promotes intolerance. Resigning to an "asymptote of acceptance" doesn't do much better.

 

There is research concerning the development of sexuality, which is fine, but if your mindset is looking for a "cure" for gayness I suspect it won't promote societal acceptance. Wouldn't you expect gay scientists to be pursuing such topics if there was a burning desire to change? There are plenty researching HIV, which disproportionately affects gay males, for example.

[Savage Beast 1]

So, what I have learned from this thread is that, if we don't allow gay men to marry or become boyscouts, they will get so frustrated that they will become 'normal' again and start inseminating women, thus ensuring that the species will continue to thrive. Got it.

 

 

Sounds right to me?

[parrot 789]

I just heard this morning that out local troop is disbanding because the BSA has informed the lesbian troop leader that she can no longer act in that capacity, even though she's been doing it for a decade with no issues until now. She didn't make a big issue of it, just asked if one or more of the parents could take over. Apparently the kids and parents got together and discussed it and the decision was "Fock the Boy Scouts."

 

If you're worried about someone molesting boys, isn't a lesbian the perfect troop leader?

[FeelingMN 273]

I just heard this morning that out local troop is disbanding because the BSA has informed the lesbian troop leader that she can no longer act in that capacity, even though she's been doing it for a decade with no issues until now. She didn't make a big issue of it, just asked if one or more of the parents could take over. Apparently the kids and parents got together and discussed it and the decision was "Fock the Boy Scouts."

 

If you're worried about someone molesting boys, isn't a lesbian the perfect troop leader?

She would molest their souls with her immorality.

[Frank M 181]

I just heard this morning that out local troop is disbanding because the BSA has informed the lesbian troop leader that she can no longer act in that capacity, even though she's been doing it for a decade with no issues until now. She didn't make a big issue of it, just asked if one or more of the parents could take over. Apparently the kids and parents got together and discussed it and the decision was "Fock the Boy Scouts."

 

If you're worried about someone molesting boys, isn't a lesbian the perfect troop leader?

 

According to drobs, porkbutt and some of the other no-neck knuckledraggers here, this is the rallying cry for all the gheys clamoring to get into the BSA.

[drobeski 3,061]

What's up with adults who feel the need to make sure kids know their sexual preference ? Kinda creepy no ?

[gocolts 300]

Some of the local scout programs around my area went bust within a month of this new rule for the scouts. Not because the leaders came out as gay, folks simply took their kids out of the program and it folded due to no more participation.

[MDC 5,878]

What's up with adults who feel the need to make sure kids know their sexual preference ? Kinda creepy no ?

No creepier than your obsession with homo stuff.

[parrot 789]

Some of the local scout programs around my area went bust within a month of this new rule for the scouts. Not because the leaders came out as gay, folks simply took their kids out of the program and it folded due to no more participation.

 

Wow. Now that's some major homophobia right there... "I'm going to pull my kids out just on the chance that they might have to interact with someone gay..."

 

What's up with adults who feel the need to make sure kids know their sexual preference ? Kinda creepy no ?

Who said anything about "make(ing) sure kids know their sexual preference"?