|
On June 13 2012 00:53 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 00:50 Klondikebar wrote:On June 13 2012 00:43 Blurry wrote:
At first I thought this was a good idea. But after thinking about it more I am a little bit against it, simply because it can make things really awkward.
Lets give the following scenario.
You are in a scout troop and one of the other scouts is gay, and starts to like you. It puts you both in a very awkward situation if he makes it clear, which is what moving away from a don't ask don't tell policy would do.
Now while I think that most gay guys stick to other gay guys and don't try to hit on those who are straight, exceptions do occur and that would remove some of the safety from the boy scouts. What if the guy was really weird, what could you do? You couldn't easily kick him out? Most women can attest to how strange and creepy some guys come off, no matter how unintentional.
I think "don't ask don't tell" would be a better policy, and a separate group should be set up for the support of young gay kids. An outright ban on gay kids would be terrible, but I don't think that it should be allowed to be displayed in the boy scouts, just like in the military.
I realize I take the less popular stance on the internet, and I may come off as a bit of a bigot, but believe me, that is far from the truth. I would simply rather have your sexual preference stay out of the boy scouts entirely. You come off as a bigot because you are a bigot. I always think it's funny that straight dudes automatically assume that gay dudes will be attracted to them. Spoiler Alert: Very few gay men are ever attracted to straight men. That makes no sense at all?
Ya it does. The minute I find out someone is straight I stop thinking about him as a potential partner.
|
On June 13 2012 01:09 Blurry wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 00:55 DoubleReed wrote:On June 13 2012 00:43 Blurry wrote:
At first I thought this was a good idea. But after thinking about it more I am a little bit against it, simply because it can make things really awkward.
Lets give the following scenario.
You are in a scout troop and one of the other scouts is gay, and starts to like you. It puts you both in a very awkward situation if he makes it clear, which is what moving away from a don't ask don't tell policy would do.
Now while I think that most gay guys stick to other gay guys and don't try to hit on those who are straight, exceptions do occur and that would remove some of the safety from the boy scouts. What if the guy was really weird, what could you do? You couldn't easily kick him out? Most women can attest to how strange and creepy some guys come off, no matter how unintentional.
I think "don't ask don't tell" would be a better policy, and a separate group should be set up for the support of young gay kids. An outright ban on gay kids would be terrible, but I don't think that it should be allowed to be displayed in the boy scouts, just like in the military.
I realize I take the less popular stance on the internet, and I may come off as a bit of a bigot, but believe me, that is far from the truth. I would simply rather have your sexual preference stay out of the boy scouts entirely. What? What if you were attracted to a lesbian? Who the hell cares? Is that really so frightening and scary you have to ban gay kids? Wtf is wrong with you? What an immature response. Only if the straight boy scouts aren't allowed to discuss their sexuality either does this policy make sense. How would that be considered immature? I'm not worried about getting hit on, I'm not worried about my kids getting hit on, it doesn't bother me. But it does change the entire dynamic of a boy scout troop if two of the members start dating, that does make it awkward. Why not just keep it don't ask, don't tell. You're not getting discriminated against, you can still join, just don't discuss your sexuality with your friends in the troop. I'm sorry you can't see my point of view, but I'm not homophobic. I just don't think that BSA is the right direction for the support of those struggling with coming out, or already being gay. And for the record, I ran into something similar while in a fraternity. Trust me, things got weird really fast. A brother openly expressing feelings over another brother really destroyed some of the bond that we had with each other, not because we were against having gay guys in our fraternity, he made it clear he was gay when he pledged, but because it drifted away from being a group of friends when one of the members started to make passes at the other member. While it may not happen often IT DOES HAPPEN, so why not just keep a policy of non-disclosure. But of course, from what I've seen on the internet, anyone expresses anything remotely anti-gay they are automatically assholes. This is a discussion board, meet my points with discussion, not with "You're a homophobic prick".
Only if the straight boy scouts aren't allowed to discuss their sexuality does this make an ounce of sense.
|
On June 12 2012 09:54 diophan wrote:
The government can choose who it gives its money to. You can claim you "don't support" Planned Parenthood but the government stipulates none of the money is used for presumably the part you don't agree with, the abortions. Unless you don't support breast screening and general women's health issues. So actually the government is refusing to give its money to fund abortions.
the federal funding allows for them to free up funds for abortions. whether the feds are directly paying for the abortion or the thing that allows them to provide the abortion, it's all semantics and irrelevant.
you still haven't told me why the feds should be able to control every little aspect of the BSA just because they help fund them. the feds give schools money, i guess they should be allowed to force our kids to be prostitutes.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On June 13 2012 00:53 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 00:50 Klondikebar wrote:On June 13 2012 00:43 Blurry wrote:
At first I thought this was a good idea. But after thinking about it more I am a little bit against it, simply because it can make things really awkward.
Lets give the following scenario.
You are in a scout troop and one of the other scouts is gay, and starts to like you. It puts you both in a very awkward situation if he makes it clear, which is what moving away from a don't ask don't tell policy would do.
Now while I think that most gay guys stick to other gay guys and don't try to hit on those who are straight, exceptions do occur and that would remove some of the safety from the boy scouts. What if the guy was really weird, what could you do? You couldn't easily kick him out? Most women can attest to how strange and creepy some guys come off, no matter how unintentional.
I think "don't ask don't tell" would be a better policy, and a separate group should be set up for the support of young gay kids. An outright ban on gay kids would be terrible, but I don't think that it should be allowed to be displayed in the boy scouts, just like in the military.
I realize I take the less popular stance on the internet, and I may come off as a bit of a bigot, but believe me, that is far from the truth. I would simply rather have your sexual preference stay out of the boy scouts entirely. You come off as a bigot because you are a bigot. I always think it's funny that straight dudes automatically assume that gay dudes will be attracted to them. Spoiler Alert: Very few gay men are ever attracted to straight men. That makes no sense at all?
How many actual lesbians do you know? How many of them are you sexually attracted to?
On June 13 2012 02:52 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 09:54 diophan wrote:
The government can choose who it gives its money to. You can claim you "don't support" Planned Parenthood but the government stipulates none of the money is used for presumably the part you don't agree with, the abortions. Unless you don't support breast screening and general women's health issues. So actually the government is refusing to give its money to fund abortions. the federal funding allows for them to free up funds for abortions. whether the feds are directly paying for the abortion or the thing that allows them to provide the abortion, it's all semantics and irrelevant. you still haven't told me why the feds should be able to control every little aspect of the BSA just because they help fund them. the feds give schools money, i guess they should be allowed to force our kids to be prostitutes.
Yes, the federal government telling the Boy Scouts if they want federal funding they cannot discriminate against people based on being in an established class of people afforded equal protection is the same as forcing kids into prostitution. By the way, I'm sure you'll disagree with this, but state governments have recently refused to give Catholic adoption agencies their money because they refuse to adopt to gay couples. Why? Because gay people are afforded equal protection under the law.
Also free up funds to abortion lol. Have you ever been to a Planned Parenthood or have any idea what their budget is and where the money goes?
|
On June 13 2012 02:41 Smat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 00:53 HellRoxYa wrote:On June 13 2012 00:50 Klondikebar wrote:On June 13 2012 00:43 Blurry wrote:
At first I thought this was a good idea. But after thinking about it more I am a little bit against it, simply because it can make things really awkward.
Lets give the following scenario.
You are in a scout troop and one of the other scouts is gay, and starts to like you. It puts you both in a very awkward situation if he makes it clear, which is what moving away from a don't ask don't tell policy would do.
Now while I think that most gay guys stick to other gay guys and don't try to hit on those who are straight, exceptions do occur and that would remove some of the safety from the boy scouts. What if the guy was really weird, what could you do? You couldn't easily kick him out? Most women can attest to how strange and creepy some guys come off, no matter how unintentional.
I think "don't ask don't tell" would be a better policy, and a separate group should be set up for the support of young gay kids. An outright ban on gay kids would be terrible, but I don't think that it should be allowed to be displayed in the boy scouts, just like in the military.
I realize I take the less popular stance on the internet, and I may come off as a bit of a bigot, but believe me, that is far from the truth. I would simply rather have your sexual preference stay out of the boy scouts entirely. You come off as a bigot because you are a bigot. I always think it's funny that straight dudes automatically assume that gay dudes will be attracted to them. Spoiler Alert: Very few gay men are ever attracted to straight men. That makes no sense at all? Ya it does. The minute I find out someone is straight I stop thinking about him as a potential partner.
It's more than that. There are all sorts of cues and body language signals that just aren't there. Whether you know it or not you throw off all sorts of signals when dealing with a potential sex partner that are subconsciously read by said potential partner. Straight guys don't throw those off, gay guys don't read them, the relationship immediately becomes platonic. Subconscious gaydar is definitely a real thing.
|
On June 10 2012 03:15 Kyrillion wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 23:36 Zedders wrote:
gay people exist.
boy scouts exist.
gay boy scouts should exist Even though you're right on that, that's logically wrong. Female people exist Boy scouts exist Female boy scouts should exist Poplar trees exist Boy scouts exist Poplar tree boy scouts should exist
Yea I know lol.
That was aimed for people like you that would over analyze my poor logic 
Regardless, I wanted to state that it's senseless to restrict membership because of an irrelevant sexual orientation status.
Of course, if the Boy Scout's doctrine literally stands for anti-gay lifestyle and condemn homosexuality in their activities it would make sense for them to ban gays. It is my understanding that they probably do not cover sexuality in the boy scouts (I hope) and as such should have no bearing on the member's sexual orientation.
That being said, I'm sure the boy scouts way of life isn't exactly a gay-friendly experience, as with most all-male gatherings, gay bashing can be a somewhat passive activity.
|
On June 13 2012 02:52 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 09:54 diophan wrote:
The government can choose who it gives its money to. You can claim you "don't support" Planned Parenthood but the government stipulates none of the money is used for presumably the part you don't agree with, the abortions. Unless you don't support breast screening and general women's health issues. So actually the government is refusing to give its money to fund abortions. the federal funding allows for them to free up funds for abortions. whether the feds are directly paying for the abortion or the thing that allows them to provide the abortion, it's all semantics and irrelevant. you still haven't told me why the feds should be able to control every little aspect of the BSA just because they help fund them. the feds give schools money, i guess they should be allowed to force our kids to be prostitutes.
You have got to be trolling.
There is a world of difference between outlawing discrimination and forcing children into prostitution. Also, the fed tells people what to do all the time. That is what governments do. That is the whole point of governments. If we did not need rules then we would not have governments at all.
|
On June 13 2012 02:57 Zedders wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2012 03:15 Kyrillion wrote:On June 08 2012 23:36 Zedders wrote:
gay people exist.
boy scouts exist.
gay boy scouts should exist Even though you're right on that, that's logically wrong. Female people exist Boy scouts exist Female boy scouts should exist Poplar trees exist Boy scouts exist Poplar tree boy scouts should exist Yea I know lol. That was aimed for people like you that would over analyze my poor logic Regardless, I wanted to state that it's senseless to restrict membership because of an irrelevant sexual orientation status. Of course, if the Boy Scout's doctrine literally stands for anti-gay lifestyle and condemn homosexuality in their activities it would make sense for them to ban gays. It is my understanding that they probably do not cover sexuality in the boy scouts (I hope) and as such should have no bearing on the member's sexual orientation. That being said, I'm sure the boy scouts way of life isn't exactly a gay-friendly experience, as with most all-male gatherings, gay bashing can be a somewhat passive activity.
But children will not stop gay bashing until they are around gays and are given they chance to understand that gay people are not going to come on to them.
|
On June 13 2012 02:54 diophan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 00:53 HellRoxYa wrote:On June 13 2012 00:50 Klondikebar wrote:On June 13 2012 00:43 Blurry wrote:
At first I thought this was a good idea. But after thinking about it more I am a little bit against it, simply because it can make things really awkward.
Lets give the following scenario.
You are in a scout troop and one of the other scouts is gay, and starts to like you. It puts you both in a very awkward situation if he makes it clear, which is what moving away from a don't ask don't tell policy would do.
Now while I think that most gay guys stick to other gay guys and don't try to hit on those who are straight, exceptions do occur and that would remove some of the safety from the boy scouts. What if the guy was really weird, what could you do? You couldn't easily kick him out? Most women can attest to how strange and creepy some guys come off, no matter how unintentional.
I think "don't ask don't tell" would be a better policy, and a separate group should be set up for the support of young gay kids. An outright ban on gay kids would be terrible, but I don't think that it should be allowed to be displayed in the boy scouts, just like in the military.
I realize I take the less popular stance on the internet, and I may come off as a bit of a bigot, but believe me, that is far from the truth. I would simply rather have your sexual preference stay out of the boy scouts entirely. You come off as a bigot because you are a bigot. I always think it's funny that straight dudes automatically assume that gay dudes will be attracted to them. Spoiler Alert: Very few gay men are ever attracted to straight men. That makes no sense at all? How many actual lesbians do you know? How many of them are you sexually attracted to?
We probably need some first hand experience from actual gay people about whether they find straight people attractive even after they know of their orientation. I don't think its clear cut that a person is either 100% straight or gay, its more like a sliding scale where you can have 80-90% or 50% (bisexual). So if thats the case, I think its conceivable that a gay person would try to hit on someone he/she finds really interesting & attractive, even if they have a different orientation, because they might respond and decide to experiment.
Therefore it could become awkward because the boy scouts typically don't have to deal with romantic interests. But I think while the potential for some uncomfortable situations to arise is there, its not bad enough that there should be any don't ask don't tell policies because its important that people are out in the open about who they are and feel proud of themselves. Its more important to support equality among people of different orientations than it is to be concerned with the potential downsides of being in an uncomfortable situation. In the end they'll all learn how to deal with people of different orientations and talk out their differences, which is definitely a good thing for any boy scout to learn.
|
On June 13 2012 03:11 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 02:54 diophan wrote:On June 13 2012 00:53 HellRoxYa wrote:On June 13 2012 00:50 Klondikebar wrote:On June 13 2012 00:43 Blurry wrote:
At first I thought this was a good idea. But after thinking about it more I am a little bit against it, simply because it can make things really awkward.
Lets give the following scenario.
You are in a scout troop and one of the other scouts is gay, and starts to like you. It puts you both in a very awkward situation if he makes it clear, which is what moving away from a don't ask don't tell policy would do.
Now while I think that most gay guys stick to other gay guys and don't try to hit on those who are straight, exceptions do occur and that would remove some of the safety from the boy scouts. What if the guy was really weird, what could you do? You couldn't easily kick him out? Most women can attest to how strange and creepy some guys come off, no matter how unintentional.
I think "don't ask don't tell" would be a better policy, and a separate group should be set up for the support of young gay kids. An outright ban on gay kids would be terrible, but I don't think that it should be allowed to be displayed in the boy scouts, just like in the military.
I realize I take the less popular stance on the internet, and I may come off as a bit of a bigot, but believe me, that is far from the truth. I would simply rather have your sexual preference stay out of the boy scouts entirely. You come off as a bigot because you are a bigot. I always think it's funny that straight dudes automatically assume that gay dudes will be attracted to them. Spoiler Alert: Very few gay men are ever attracted to straight men. That makes no sense at all? How many actual lesbians do you know? How many of them are you sexually attracted to? We probably need some first hand experience from actual gay people about whether they find straight people attractive even after they know of their orientation. I don't think its clear cut that a person is either 100% straight or gay, its more like a sliding scale where you can have 80-90% or 50% (bisexual). So if thats the case, I think its conceivable that a gay person would try to hit on someone he/she finds really interesting & attractive, even if they have a different orientation, because they might respond and decide to experiment. Therefore it could become awkward because the boy scouts typically don't have to deal with romantic interests. But I think while the potential for some uncomfortable situations to arise is there, its not bad enough that there should be any don't ask don't tell policies because its important that people are out in the open about who they are and feel proud of themselves. Its more important to support equality among people of different orientations than it is to be concerned with the potential downsides of being in an uncomfortable situation. In the end they'll all learn how to deal with people of different orientations and talk out their differences, which is definitely a good thing for any boy scout to learn.
The part that bugs me most about this entire discussion is in particular about the scout leaders. There are many cases of straight scout leaders sexually abusing kids, and unless I'm mistaken none of the scout leaders who sexually abused kids has said he's gay. Being gay doesn't have anything to do with sexually abusing 12 year old boys. That's like saying straight men would sexually abuse 12 year old girls given the chance.
|
Russian Federation748 Posts
Uhh what would constitute proof to you? Ever heard of what happens in prison? Ask some of those guys who rape people whether they consider themselves gay or not
But why would what they consider have to be true ?
By that logic it would be okay if the boy scouts did not allow black members.
Well, black people have a harder time camouflaging in the woods.
|
The only reason I can imagine that this hasn't already happened is due to the BSA being headquartered in some backwards-ass conservative state (Texas) so all the higher up are from the area.
There's been gays in Boy Scouts as long as that ban has been in place. When I saw a scout the scoutmaster's own son was gay, granted I didn't live in Texas.
On June 13 2012 03:16 diophan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 03:11 radscorpion9 wrote:On June 13 2012 02:54 diophan wrote:On June 13 2012 00:53 HellRoxYa wrote:On June 13 2012 00:50 Klondikebar wrote:On June 13 2012 00:43 Blurry wrote:
At first I thought this was a good idea. But after thinking about it more I am a little bit against it, simply because it can make things really awkward.
Lets give the following scenario.
You are in a scout troop and one of the other scouts is gay, and starts to like you. It puts you both in a very awkward situation if he makes it clear, which is what moving away from a don't ask don't tell policy would do.
Now while I think that most gay guys stick to other gay guys and don't try to hit on those who are straight, exceptions do occur and that would remove some of the safety from the boy scouts. What if the guy was really weird, what could you do? You couldn't easily kick him out? Most women can attest to how strange and creepy some guys come off, no matter how unintentional.
I think "don't ask don't tell" would be a better policy, and a separate group should be set up for the support of young gay kids. An outright ban on gay kids would be terrible, but I don't think that it should be allowed to be displayed in the boy scouts, just like in the military.
I realize I take the less popular stance on the internet, and I may come off as a bit of a bigot, but believe me, that is far from the truth. I would simply rather have your sexual preference stay out of the boy scouts entirely. You come off as a bigot because you are a bigot. I always think it's funny that straight dudes automatically assume that gay dudes will be attracted to them. Spoiler Alert: Very few gay men are ever attracted to straight men. That makes no sense at all? How many actual lesbians do you know? How many of them are you sexually attracted to? We probably need some first hand experience from actual gay people about whether they find straight people attractive even after they know of their orientation. I don't think its clear cut that a person is either 100% straight or gay, its more like a sliding scale where you can have 80-90% or 50% (bisexual). So if thats the case, I think its conceivable that a gay person would try to hit on someone he/she finds really interesting & attractive, even if they have a different orientation, because they might respond and decide to experiment. Therefore it could become awkward because the boy scouts typically don't have to deal with romantic interests. But I think while the potential for some uncomfortable situations to arise is there, its not bad enough that there should be any don't ask don't tell policies because its important that people are out in the open about who they are and feel proud of themselves. Its more important to support equality among people of different orientations than it is to be concerned with the potential downsides of being in an uncomfortable situation. In the end they'll all learn how to deal with people of different orientations and talk out their differences, which is definitely a good thing for any boy scout to learn. The part that bugs me most about this entire discussion is in particular about the scout leaders. There are many cases of straight scout leaders sexually abusing kids, and unless I'm mistaken none of the scout leaders who sexually abused kids has said he's gay. Being gay doesn't have anything to do with sexually abusing 12 year old boys. That's like saying straight men would sexually abuse 12 year old girls given the chance.
The vast majority of child molesters, whether they are molesting children of the same or opposite gender, will identify themselves as straight.
|
On June 13 2012 02:52 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 09:54 diophan wrote:
The government can choose who it gives its money to. You can claim you "don't support" Planned Parenthood but the government stipulates none of the money is used for presumably the part you don't agree with, the abortions. Unless you don't support breast screening and general women's health issues. So actually the government is refusing to give its money to fund abortions. the federal funding allows for them to free up funds for abortions. whether the feds are directly paying for the abortion or the thing that allows them to provide the abortion, it's all semantics and irrelevant. you still haven't told me why the feds should be able to control every little aspect of the BSA just because they help fund them. the feds give schools money, i guess they should be allowed to force our kids to be prostitutes. User was temp banned for this post.
Shouldn't the state by that logic give me back the tax dollars I paid for two fucking unwinnable and downright retarded wars?
|
On June 13 2012 03:11 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 02:54 diophan wrote:On June 13 2012 00:53 HellRoxYa wrote:On June 13 2012 00:50 Klondikebar wrote:On June 13 2012 00:43 Blurry wrote:
At first I thought this was a good idea. But after thinking about it more I am a little bit against it, simply because it can make things really awkward.
Lets give the following scenario.
You are in a scout troop and one of the other scouts is gay, and starts to like you. It puts you both in a very awkward situation if he makes it clear, which is what moving away from a don't ask don't tell policy would do.
Now while I think that most gay guys stick to other gay guys and don't try to hit on those who are straight, exceptions do occur and that would remove some of the safety from the boy scouts. What if the guy was really weird, what could you do? You couldn't easily kick him out? Most women can attest to how strange and creepy some guys come off, no matter how unintentional.
I think "don't ask don't tell" would be a better policy, and a separate group should be set up for the support of young gay kids. An outright ban on gay kids would be terrible, but I don't think that it should be allowed to be displayed in the boy scouts, just like in the military.
I realize I take the less popular stance on the internet, and I may come off as a bit of a bigot, but believe me, that is far from the truth. I would simply rather have your sexual preference stay out of the boy scouts entirely. You come off as a bigot because you are a bigot. I always think it's funny that straight dudes automatically assume that gay dudes will be attracted to them. Spoiler Alert: Very few gay men are ever attracted to straight men. That makes no sense at all? How many actual lesbians do you know? How many of them are you sexually attracted to? We probably need some first hand experience from actual gay people about whether they find straight people attractive even after they know of their orientation. I don't think its clear cut that a person is either 100% straight or gay, its more like a sliding scale where you can have 80-90% or 50% (bisexual). So if thats the case, I think its conceivable that a gay person would try to hit on someone he/she finds really interesting & attractive, even if they have a different orientation, because they might respond and decide to experiment. Therefore it could become awkward because the boy scouts typically don't have to deal with romantic interests. But I think while the potential for some uncomfortable situations to arise is there, its not bad enough that there should be any don't ask don't tell policies because its important that people are out in the open about who they are and feel proud of themselves. Its more important to support equality among people of different orientations than it is to be concerned with the potential downsides of being in an uncomfortable situation. In the end they'll all learn how to deal with people of different orientations and talk out their differences, which is definitely a good thing for any boy scout to learn.
This whole conversation is a little silly. Of course gay guys are attracted to straight guys. It happens all the time because physical attraction is often the first step (comes before actually getting to know the person). That said, I have never understood why, for straight guys, a gay guy hitting on them is any different from a girl they don't like hitting on them. As a gay guy I get hit on all the time in straight bars and i find it to be pretty damn flattering lol. Some people just need to learn to take a compliment.
|
I can't think of a single good reason to forbid gay people from occupying any job/club they want (unless it's like a church/religious/ethical organization that's privately funded and doesn't want gay people, or something). I have no idea why anyone would have a problem with gay people being in the Boy Scouts. They're just people like anyone else. There are some bad ones, certainly, but there are tonnes of bad straight people, too.
I'm not gay myself, but I've never really had a problem with the orientation of anyone I've worked/studied with...and I can't imagine why anyone would.
|
On June 13 2012 01:09 Blurry wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 00:55 DoubleReed wrote:On June 13 2012 00:43 Blurry wrote:
At first I thought this was a good idea. But after thinking about it more I am a little bit against it, simply because it can make things really awkward.
Lets give the following scenario.
You are in a scout troop and one of the other scouts is gay, and starts to like you. It puts you both in a very awkward situation if he makes it clear, which is what moving away from a don't ask don't tell policy would do.
Now while I think that most gay guys stick to other gay guys and don't try to hit on those who are straight, exceptions do occur and that would remove some of the safety from the boy scouts. What if the guy was really weird, what could you do? You couldn't easily kick him out? Most women can attest to how strange and creepy some guys come off, no matter how unintentional.
I think "don't ask don't tell" would be a better policy, and a separate group should be set up for the support of young gay kids. An outright ban on gay kids would be terrible, but I don't think that it should be allowed to be displayed in the boy scouts, just like in the military.
I realize I take the less popular stance on the internet, and I may come off as a bit of a bigot, but believe me, that is far from the truth. I would simply rather have your sexual preference stay out of the boy scouts entirely. What? What if you were attracted to a lesbian? Who the hell cares? Is that really so frightening and scary you have to ban gay kids? Wtf is wrong with you? What an immature response. How would that be considered immature? I'm not worried about getting hit on, I'm not worried about my kids getting hit on, it doesn't bother me. But it does change the entire dynamic of a boy scout troop if two of the members start dating, that does make it awkward. Why not just keep it don't ask, don't tell. You're not getting discriminated against, you can still join, just don't discuss your sexuality with your friends in the troop. I'm sorry you can't see my point of view, but I'm not homophobic. I just don't think that BSA is the right direction for the support of those struggling with coming out, or already being gay. And for the record, I ran into something similar while in a fraternity. Trust me, things got weird really fast. A brother openly expressing feelings over another brother really destroyed some of the bond that we had with each other, not because we were against having gay guys in our fraternity, he made it clear he was gay when he pledged, but because it drifted away from being a group of friends when one of the members started to make passes at the other member. While it may not happen often IT DOES HAPPEN, so why not just keep a policy of non-disclosure. But of course, from what I've seen on the internet, anyone expresses anything remotely anti-gay they are automatically assholes. This is a discussion board, meet my points with discussion, not with "You're a homophobic prick".
Yes it's completely immature. Your solution "oh dear lord there are gays let's just pretend they aren't there and everything will go swimmingly!" It's prudish and childish. Grow up.
Maybe you don't understand what "don't ask don't tell" is. Because what that implies is that if you ever find out that a scout is gay, he's cut. Banned. Goodbye. So don't pretend this isn't a homophobic policy.
|
By most standards I'm pretty bigoted. I wouldn't support legal requirements for all organizations to allow gay members/leaders. If a homosexual presidential candidate were going out for election, to me personally, it would be a huge negative against me voting for him.
None the less, I was a boy scout growing up, and I can't think of a legitimate reason why gay members should not be allowed in boy scouts, either leaders or scouts. I would not have had a problem with a gay scout in my troop, although granted I'd probably have been more immature about sharing a tent with him than I probably should have been had there been one.
I personally really do believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice primarily. I think everyone chooses how sexual or asexual they ultimately are in leading their life, and I think it's rarely impossible to be able to find someone you can honestly love of any gender or physical state if you're willing to take responsibility for your own well being and person hood (dysfunctional people tend to have dysfunctional relationships, regardless of what sex they are dating). This being the case, I do not believe it is inappropriate for religious or philosophical groups to discriminate on the basis of sexual behavior in regards to their own membership.
But boy scouts is not a religious or philosophical group, they are an activity group. Boy scouts is an institution with a mission of enriching the life of boys through education and exploration of the wilderness and survival within it. How does past sexual behavior or preference interfere with your ability to enjoy nature? Or your ability to contribute to a survival exercise? CERTAINLY restrictions need to be put in place for leadership regarding inappropriate sexual conduct, but the claim that homosexual men are innately any more dangerous to children than heterosexual men is EXTREMELY libelous, and again and again it's shown that it is not backed up by statistical reality (very slightly higher is not a fair qualifier for discrimination against individuals, especially when sexual classification is so dynamic and subjective).
I for one am utterly SHOCKED that the percentage of people who think this policy should not be overturned is nearly 25% on these forums. I would think that even others like me, who don't believe that homosexuality is 'right' would at least agree that the moral questionably doesn't entail discrimination from an organization like boy scouts.
|
On June 13 2012 11:22 SwiftSpear wrote:
By most standards I'm pretty bigoted. I wouldn't support legal requirements for all organizations to allow gay members/leaders. If a homosexual presidential candidate were going out for election, to me personally, it would be a huge negative against me voting for him.
None the less, I was a boy scout growing up, and I can't think of a legitimate reason why gay members should not be allowed in boy scouts, either leaders or scouts. I would not have had a problem with a gay scout in my troop, although granted I'd probably have been more immature about sharing a tent with him than I probably should have been had there been one.
I personally really do believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice primarily. I think everyone chooses how sexual or asexual they ultimately are in leading their life, and I think it's rarely impossible to be able to find someone you can honestly love of any gender or physical state if you're willing to take responsibility for your own well being and person hood (dysfunctional people tend to have dysfunctional relationships, regardless of what sex they are dating). This being the case, I do not believe it is inappropriate for religious or philosophical groups to discriminate on the basis of sexual behavior in regards to their own membership.
But boy scouts is not a religious or philosophical group, they are an activity group. Boy scouts is an institution with a mission of enriching the life of boys through education and exploration of the wilderness and survival within it. How does past sexual behavior or preference interfere with your ability to enjoy nature? Or your ability to contribute to a survival exercise? CERTAINLY restrictions need to be put in place for leadership regarding inappropriate sexual conduct, but the claim that homosexual men are innately any more dangerous to children than heterosexual men is EXTREMELY libelous, and again and again it's shown that it is not backed up by statistical reality (very slightly higher is not a fair qualifier for discrimination against individuals, especially when sexual classification is so dynamic and subjective).
I for one am utterly SHOCKED that the percentage of people who think this policy should not be overturned is nearly 25% on these forums. I would think that even others like me, who don't believe that homosexuality is 'right' would at least agree that the moral questionably doesn't entail discrimination from an organization like boy scouts.
I think a lot of people simply misread it and thought the question was whether the government should have the authority to force them to allow gays, where as it was actually a referendum put forth by the BSA themselves.
|
I am an Eagle Scout. We used to joke about this rule all the time. If I can remember, gay scouts were allowed, but there couldn't be openly gay leaders. We have had women leaders, and it seemed like their reasoning was that all gay scout leaders are perverts. It is weird, but we really didn't think much of it because we really didn't care. Much like, if I had a gay officer in the military, it really wouldn't bother me. Unless they were making me uncomfortable, but you aren't in the scouts or the military for sex. You are there to learn things and kill people.
|
On June 07 2012 11:36 ThePiedPiper wrote:
As long as no raping occurs, im fine with anything. Second that stuff occurs, kick them out
So once one gay man does something wrong they all need to go? You cant just group all homosexuals into a massive group. Knowing several gay people i can say that they are just as varied and as good of people as my straight friends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
