Boy Scouts of America and Homosexuals - Page 10

On October 10 2012 14:54 Whitewing wrote:


No it isn't okay for them to stick to their views, because they are receiving government funding and benefits.

On October 09 2012 19:38 VegetarianPeaceLove wrote:
If there was a group of girlscouts, would parents be comfortable with a group of all adult males going for the trip?
Just trying to firgure out a rational, any time personalopiniond get in the way of reality, we're at a loss.

So, trying to figure it out objectivley, maybe it's just the reality of men, gay or straight that scares people.

Not to get to gross here, but you have a dick that constantly builds stress to eventual eruption. This repeats almost every day and only builds up and needs to be released.

Are you gona leave it up, to the average day dolts to go about it right?

I'm just sprouting ideas, I was molested at a chucky cheese by two gay guys when I was 13 and I don't hold any grudges because I know the minute you generalize you should be brought out side and shot.

On October 10 2012 16:19 stormtemplar wrote:


I think he meant in general, as in, he doesn't hold grudges against gays.

On October 10 2012 19:32 OrangeMarmalade wrote:
Why is there such a big fuss about this? If they don't want any homosexuals in BSoA then they are free to do so. If you force them to accept homosexuals then that will be forced upon them and they will always be shut out cold from the groups. I think homosexuals should go to places where they feel at home and where they are welcomed, why force themselves into a group of people that will make fun of them and don't want them in the first place?

Conclusion ; I think BSA should be able to have the rules they want, albeit offending.

I'm against gays. I don't believe you are born with a sexual orientation. it is a learned behavior. Im not a homophobe by any means. I have a gay friend and several gay girl friends. I just don't think it is right. i think there is a reason there is man and woman. you don't see gays in animals. maybe occasional but if animals were gay they would all go extinct. theres a reason gays cant' reproduce. it wasn't intended. Therefore it is wrong.

Kinda this.

I'm have zero problem with gays. I have some gay friends/knowns too. But Jesus crist, i'm fking tired of reading people trying to make it look like a normal thing. Go find "normal", "regular", "natural" in the dictionary.
And the antonym of normal, is abnormal. Being gay is indeed abnormal. Accept it.
I repeat, i have nothing aganist gay people, gay marriage, or whatever.

What have indeed became normal is commenting "gay=normal" for pure political , bureaucratic and demagogic purposes (like TV ""stars"" and politicians....yes, the best people in the world...). This is sad.

EDIT: Oh and about the "genetic tendence" vs "learned behavior", i'm honestly fking tired. Why? So-called "legit" studies keep coming sustaining both theories ¬¬

On October 09 2012 03:15 qrs wrote:
And most rapes are committed by males, so stop trying to impose your own views on the discussion.

(I don't actually have a position on whether the fear of pedophilia is a good reason for banning gay Boy Scout leaders, by the way, but I think that it's a legitimate subject of discussion and that censoring the conversation is a great way to validate your own opinions, but a lousy way to have an intelligent debate about something.)

On October 09 2012 03:11 KiwiQuest wrote:


I'm making the assumption I know which passages you refer to (there is a passage in each that often pops up when it comes to homosexuality).

The one in Corinthians (1:6-9): "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God".

The problem with this one is that arsenokoites can and have been argued to be homosexuals, but it could also be male prostitutions (making the sin in question prostitution, not homosexuality).

Revelations (21:8): "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." (King James Bible).

Whoremongers have been translated as sexual sinners, whoremongers, fornicators and other such things, meaning there's still a lot of debate whether its actually meant to be homosexuals, or something else.

In short: Its not that easy to say. If you wish to, you can argue that homosexuality is forbidden, but its just as easy to argue it isn't.

On October 10 2012 13:56 dAPhREAk wrote:

i dont know what you are talking about anymore.

On October 10 2012 15:05 heliusx wrote:

well i'll be waiting for a counter argument for this, if there even is any...

On October 10 2012 14:54 Whitewing wrote:


No it isn't okay for them to stick to their views, because they are receiving government funding and benefits.

On October 11 2012 00:39 dAPhREAk wrote:

actually, it is okay for them to stick to their views. you can petition the gov't to remove their public funding and benefits. just remember, this is the same argument pro-life people make for shutting down abortion clinics. you can dictate how the gov't spends your taxpayer dollars, you cannot dictate what other people believe.

On October 11 2012 00:49 Klondikebar wrote:


Except the burden of proof is on the BSA. They're saying "we ban gays because we're a Christian organization." They set themselves up as a religious organization.

The first amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Now, the government really isn't allowed to get involved AT ALL. They certainly aren't allowed to censor them but, because they are a religious organization, they aren't allowed to support them either.

Abortion clinics claim no religious affiliation so the first amendment really has nothing to do with whether or not they get funding.

It's up to the BSA to demonstrate why they should get funding at all. It's not on our backs to demonstrate why they shouldn't get it.

On October 11 2012 01:03 dAPhREAk wrote:

what burden of proof are you referring to?

"Most sexual offenders against children are male, although female offenders may account for 0.4% to 4% of convicted sexual offenders. On the basis of a range of published reports, McConaghy estimates a 10 to 1 ratio of male-to-female child molesters."

On October 11 2012 01:05 Klondikebar wrote:


The burden of proof as to whether or not they should get funding. You implied in your post that the onus is on dissenters to petition the government. I'm arguing the onus is on the BSA to prove they deserve funding in the first place. The default is that the BSA gets no funding.

On October 10 2012 22:33 Subversive wrote:

Wow what an idea. You act like pedophiles only sexually assault boys or girls based on their sexual orientation.

On October 11 2012 01:05 Klondikebar wrote:


The burden of proof as to whether or not they should get funding. You implied in your post that the onus is on dissenters to petition the government. I'm arguing the onus is on the BSA to prove they deserve funding in the first place. The default is that the BSA gets no funding.