EPTWhat bothers me is where to draw the line. Because I see no reason not to extend the argument and rename it the unisex scouts of America and include girls. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I suspect it's a move the organization and probably American society isn't ready for. Tomgirls have yet to achieve the same level of organization as gays.
Gay Scout Resolution - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
What bothers me is where to draw the line. Because I see no reason not to extend the argument and rename it the unisex scouts of America and include girls. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I suspect it's a move the organization and probably American society isn't ready for. Tomgirls have yet to achieve the same level of organization as gays. | ||
|
SpunXtainz
Australia13 Posts
| ||
|
Hamboigahz
Australia55 Posts
On June 07 2012 14:29 BlazeFury01 wrote: Let me be a little more clear. It "CAN" be a choice. Some people are born that way while others choose to do it. stop. just stop. You are grasping at straws here. No straight man would choose to have sex with another man just because the option is there | ||
|
Afk
United States29 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On June 07 2012 14:29 BlazeFury01 wrote: Let me be a little more clear. It "CAN" be a choice. Some people are born that way while others choose to do it. A vast majority of women who have sexual relationships with women are actually attracted to women and a crushing majority of men who have sexual relationships with men are attracted to men. [Note that this line was incredibly awkward to write because of the massive concessions I have to make in order to make such a silly statement] Yes sure a few women are just so disgusted by men that they choose to be with women instead - but in this case, they either don't actually feel sexually attracted to women and still do it for whatever personal reason they may have, or they were bisexual in the first place. Either way, let's not split them into two categories pretending they're equal. A handful of oddball cases that border on being insignificant has no weight on real world issues. | ||
|
BlazeFury01
United States1460 Posts
On June 07 2012 14:34 Hamboigahz wrote: stop. just stop. You are grasping at straws here. No straight man would choose to have sex with another man just because the option is there lol man, you would be surprised to know the truth about that. | ||
|
plogamer
Canada3132 Posts
 Keep up the good work! | ||
|
Jaaaaasper
United States10225 Posts
On June 07 2012 14:38 plogamer wrote: I am very glad to hear from actual scout members who are open and inclusive of gays in the BSA. Keep up the good work!Thanks, wish we could have more of an influence than we do atm. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On June 07 2012 14:32 Zahir wrote: In ancient Greece all of the manliest men around were at least a little gay. They were a smidge-bit pedophilic too  | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
| ||
|
OptimusYale
Korea (South)1005 Posts
I was a scout leader in the UK and I knew 1 or 2 gay leaders, but knew kids who were openly gay. I mean shit man, we're people regardless. Having a gay scout leader won't put your kids in any more danger than a straight leader. Theres not a higher risk of having a scout molested by a gay leader or a straight....and as far as I'm aware homosexuality isn't catchy. I can understand sex offenders, I can understand people with a major criminal charge....but to be gay? Fuck the BSA if they don't relieve this. The Scout Association has no restrictions in the UK and thats how it should be | ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
On June 07 2012 14:33 SpunXtainz wrote: If you want to be a boy scout leader, you shouldn't choose to be a homosexual. They want to have their pie and eat it too =/ Cant tell if trolling... | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On June 07 2012 13:27 SpunXtainz wrote: It's a bit of a no-brainer; lots of homosexuals lead boy scouts because they get opportunities such as camping trips to take advantage of their position. I have nothing against homosexuals that don't do this, but some of them do. Better that they save 1 person's life. I saw this same kind of argument earlier in the thread, but held my tongue in the hope that it was a one-off thing. I guess my hopes were misplaced. Plenty of people have been killed by drunk drivers, better ban alcohol and cars. People have been electrocuted by downed power lines, better ban electricity. | ||
|
DawN883
Sweden558 Posts
On June 07 2012 15:00 Millitron wrote: I saw this same kind of argument earlier in the thread, but held my tongue in the hope that it was a one-off thing. I guess my hopes were misplaced. Plenty of people have been killed by drunk drivers, better ban alcohol and cars. People have been electrocuted by downed power lines, better ban electricity. agreed | ||
|
Velocirapture
United States983 Posts
On June 07 2012 14:38 BlazeFury01 wrote: lol man, you would be surprised to know the truth about that. It is true that lots of straight guys have gay sex for fun but I have never heard of a straight man having a serious boyfriend/life partner/husband though (speaking as a gay man myself). There is an ineffable quality of intimacy that we all share when we find those special partners and sexuality is a big part of it. The act itself, independent of all this, is just a really really good time lol. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4654 Posts
| ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On June 07 2012 15:55 Introvert wrote: This thread needs help. I've already stated my opinion on the matter, but we need to think some more about this. Whether or not being gay is a choice is irrelevant. The moral side of the Boy Scouts does not allow gays (officially, the the BSA takes place largely on the local level, so i'm sure that in many cases gays are allowed). What matters in the BSA's ability to run themselves. They aren't actively seeking out gay scouts and kicking them out, but it's a rule. I don't understand why they can't manage themselves. These aren't terrorists threatening to kill all gays that attempt to join, they are a private organization, and can do this. it is KIND OF like a restaurant reserving the right to refuse service to anyone. Next people will be saying that Churches should not be allowed to refuse performing a gay ceremony. I totally agree that they shouldn't be forced to allow gays, but by that same reasoning I'm allowed to refute poor arguments. I don't believe most of the debate has been about whether or not they should be allowed to do this, but rather why they do it in the first place, at least that's what I've been debating about. My position is basically that while I disagree with their position, and so far haven't seen any ironclad arguments in favor of their position, its ultimately their choice to make. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4654 Posts
On June 07 2012 16:00 Millitron wrote: I totally agree that they shouldn't be forced to allow gays, but by that same reasoning I'm allowed to refute poor arguments. I don't believe most of the debate has been about whether or not they should be allowed to do this, but rather why they do it in the first place, at least that's what I've been debating about. My position is basically that while I disagree with their position, and so far haven't seen any ironclad arguments in favor of their position, its ultimately their choice to make. The problem with debating whether or not they "should" (from what I take you to mean is a moral position) is that it will never end. That would move on to the morality of homosexuality itself. If you think it's wrong, then you say no. You think it's fine, you say yes. now, on TL a consensus may be reached (considering that the the vast majority of TL'ers seem to agree on many of these things), but it is hardly an accurate representation of the USA or anyone else considering this policy. So in short I don't even know why I'm in this thread. Nothing is going to actually be accomplished, that's for sure. | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
However, you'd think that the reductions in donations in 2006 (Including the long time and respected donor Pew Charitable Trusts) would be a wake up call that the world had changed. You would think Spielbergs resignation “I thought the Boy Scouts stood for equal opportunity, and I have consistently spoken out publicly and privately against intolerance and discrimination based on ethnic, religious, racial and sexual orientation…” would wake anyone still unaware. Or the litigation that continues to surround the discriminatory policies. Even if they are constitutional, even if they are within your right to set it makes them no less abhorrent and no less wrong. This thread is fresh and renewed proof that the majority of public opinion is against discrimination against homosexuals. Eventually, maybe 50 years in the future or 5, the BSA will have to adapt to survive. Do you want it to be a reduction to a shell of its former existence that only reaches out to a handful when it used to bring opportunity to many? If they cannot abide by changing their policy against Christian homosexuals then eventually, they will disappear to time. But overall point, the BSA can do what they want. And we'll call them bigoted for following medieval translations of hate infused in a book of love from god. | ||
|
Abort Retry Fail
2636 Posts
Europe has even Kopism and some oddball religion and we don't even allow atheists and gays in BSA. Congrats America! | ||
| ||
