Boy Scouts of America Opt to Destroy Themselves

a huge section of society's conservatives have turned on every gay person regardless of what they actually do and you wonder why your values have not reached them?

 

or your just going in circles in your own mind and that's throwing off the infallibility you seem to think you have

 

and being gay is wrong because? being gay is unnatural because?

- - - Updated - - -

im sorry you don't like your own fantasy's

 

ok you prefer mutual masturbation to anal sex as well as having fewer sexual partners why is being gay bad?

 

so you got nothing to back yourself up with?

 

Basically you have no understanding of subjective morality, and are presenting a gigantic strawman.

 

There are posters obsessed with it.....best to just back away slowly....but back away.

 

Thinking homosexuality is wrong is NOT 'homophobia'

the issue of sexual orentation should have never been an issue with the Boy Scouts.

 

I agree, sexual orientation should have never been an issue, they shouldn't have banned gay scouts.
Thinking Homosexuality is wrong because of religion is not homophobia.
thinking gay kids will prey on straight kids, cause disease and destroy the institution....is homophobia.

 

the issue of ANY type of sex should have never been an issue..

 

No one is suggesting anyone be beat down.
Only that sexual orientation not be a part of a childs experience in scouting.
What is wrong with you people that you dont understand that?

 

Unless a majority of the "management" for lack of a better term, at the BSA end up being gay scout leaders.
The orgainization will faulter and fail.
Summer is coming, events will be held.
We will see who still hangs in there and hopes for the best or pulls thier children out.

 

Any other dead horses you wish to beat?

 

Wait, what? Hang on, you're suggesting that sexual orientation not be a part of a child's experience in scouting? I though you were the one making the exclusion of children based on their sexual orientation out to be a good thing.

Let's face facts for a minute here. What does sexuality have to do with scouting? Nothing. Sexuality should never even be a topic that comes up within the scouts. So why would it matter if the scouts or the scoutmasters are gay? If sexuality isn't an issue, why would you even bring it up? Don't even mention it. In throwing out people who are known to be gay, the BSA are injecting sexual orientation into the experience of the scouts. When 11-year-old Billy gets kicked out because he thinks he likes boys instead of girls, or his scout leader mother Sandra gets kicked out because of his other mother Winnifred, and suddenly Billy and Sandra aren't allowed there any more, who was it who inserted sexual orientation into the discussion? Was it Billy, who was content to just live and let live? Was it Sandra, who knew better than to talk about her sexuality among children and knew that there was no reason to do so in the scouts? Or was it the BSA, who decided that despite "sexual orientation not being a part of a child's experience in scouting", it was imperative to throw these two members of the scouting community out because of their sexual orientation?

When I look through the scout code and the scout law, there is nothing there that would preclude homosexuals from being scouts. Nothing. The only way you could is if you decided that, for some reason, homosexuals could not be moral. Which is bigoted horse(*)(*)(*)(*). The fact that people are leaving the BSA in swathes because of this, if it is true to begin with, says far more negative about the members of the BSA than I ever could. And the fact that you don't get that now, sexual orientation is no longer being inserted into the child's experience in scouting says a fair bit about you.

 

My position is the BSA should not be forced to accept gay members and gay scout leaders.
If gays dont want thier sexual orientation to be an issue, keep it to themselves. If they can, if they cant then dont join.
I know there are already gay members and gay leaders. But its not the norm and its not encouraged.
All they have done now is openly accept something that they didnt want to.
And that is what will be the downfall of the BSA.

 

that does net it out. If flag football was the only thing offered in my area and I wanted tackle football, then I would try and start a tackle football league or drive a bit to participate. The gays could have started the Gay Scouts but they know that it would have been a failure. Instead, they would rather see the BSA perish

 

Only in our ridiculously shallow and petty society could the Boy Scouts opting to stop being huge dooshwads be seen as "destroying themselves".

 

The BSA doesn't give "merit badges" related to sexual relations between people nor should it. The sexual orientation of the individual has absolutely nothing to do with the BSA so why are people pretending it does?

Here is a link to the actual merit badges of the BSA:

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/BoyScouts/GuideforMeritBadgeCounselors/Review/list.aspx

There is only one that isn't on the list that I wish was there:

Intolerance (i.e. Effects of Intolerance based upon bigoted invidious prejudice on Society)

If we really want to teach Scouts "virtuous" moral behavior we really should be addressing the effects of intolerance based upon bigoted invidous prejudice because it is one of the most serious problems in society today.

 

And guess what: the scouts themselves voted to accept them. Nobody forced them. Was there pressure from outside? Sure, but nowhere was coercion used, it's just what a majority wanted.

To what degree should they "keep it to themselves"? Should they not bring it up among the scouts? I agree completely. Should they hide who they are, and pretend their partners of however many years don't exist to the world? Should they remain closeted, lest some concerned (and/or bigoted (*)(*)(*)(*)head of a) parent discover that they were gay by reading an obituary and then turn it into a fiasco? How about Jennifer Tyrrell, the poster child for this discrimination - do you think she came out loud and proud, talking about her gay lover, knowing full well it could get her kicked out, or do you think it's more likely that she kept her orientation to herself and that someone in the scout leadership found out?

I feel the necessity to reiterate the point here: I'm looking at sexual preference as a non-issue. I'm not the one turning it into an issue of discussion. By excluding Jennifer Tyrell, the BSA turned sexuality into an issue that matters for the scouts. If you want, and I quote you:

...Then how the (*)(*)(*)(*) do you see this as a bad thing? Sexual orientation is that much closer to no longer being an issue! Look, I see where you're coming from - you don't like homosexuals, and you don't want them included in the scouts. But can you at least be honest about it? Because claiming "It's for the sake of not exposing our children to homosexuality" is obviously bull(*)(*)(*)(*), when without such rules, sexuality becomes less of an issue.

"They"? Do you have any actual polling on the matter, or are you just projecting your own preferences onto the BSA? Remember, they voted to include homosexual scouts. Not the government, not hollywood, not the gays, the scouts.

 

Well I dont know why the freaks are still arguing about it. They got what they wanted, and will get what they want with gay leaders within the year.
Coming on here or anyother forum and calling critics of the vote "intolerant", "bigots", "ignorant", "rednecks", "dinosaurs", "homophobes" or whatever else the insult of the day is.
Is not going to endear them to anyone.
You got the BSA, its your baby now. Do with it as you please.

 

Pressure from proposed lawsuits.
Lawsuits that would bankrupt the BSA and drag on for years.

 

Fair enough. Lets just take that one step further in order to be fair and say that heterosexuality should not be an issue either. That means, no little Johnny talking about the girl he's got a crush on or he gets the boot. They shouldn't get to be kind and considerate of one sexuality(hetero) while being cruel and unwelcoming to another(homo) just because a person has a subjective, and incredibly petty, discomfort with the latter.

 

neither is the mouth, but oral sex is by far the most common sex practice spanning both homo and heterosexuality.

please cite your source for this. specifically the bolded portion.

having nothing to do with sodomy.

but vaginal sex is the number one transmitter via heterosexual sex of HIV and AIDS worldwide.

 

Bollocks. They've had these kinds of lawsuits, and they've dealt with them in short order - from homosexuals, from atheists, from people who didn't like the "under god" part of the national anthem. The courts have always had the same ruling (they have the right to limit their membership in accordance with free speech), and any lawsuit against them now would be very, very short. If they were feeling pressured from that, they screwed themselves. And again, why do you even care? As stated above, now the scouts have to discuss homosexuality less than before - now that scouts aren't left to wonder why little Billy is no longer allowed to come to the meets.

"Leader Wilkins?"
"Yeah Johnny?"
"Where's Billy? He's never missed a meet as long as I've been here!"
"Well, Johnny, Billy was expelled."
"Why's that?"
"Because he was a homosexual."
"Ah, I see...
...Leader Wilkins, what's a homosexual?"

So if what you're after is really getting sexuality out of the scouts, why aren't you supporting this?

- - - Updated - - -

Rahl, shut up. Seriously,this argument is (*)(*)(*)(*), was (*)(*)(*)(*), and remains (*)(*)(*)(*). Take a course in statistics, will ya? You're making all those you associate with, and those on your side, look (*)(*)(*)(*)ing clueless.

 

I'm not sure what this rant is for. the majority of HIV/AIDS transmissions are among heterosexuals worldwide. That isn't somehow going to stop being true.