Patreon LogoYour support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)

Why do the gays even wanna be in the Boy Scouts?

Rudolph Quin

Rudolph Quin

Mistaken for some sort of scoundrel
Withdrawn
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Location
here
No, for real, what's the point? Why don't they just make their own "hate-free" club? Wouldn't that be easier for everybody? That way nobody feels like they're being censored or pressured to be a certain way. Because, honestly, forcing the Boy Scouts of America to change their policy feels a bit like religious extremism trying to shove it down everybody's throats.

And who cares what the fuck Chik-fil-A thinks? They make fucking chicken sandwiches(shitty ones, btw). I don't go to KFC because they support abortion or the war on terrorism. I go there to fucking eat because I'm hungry and shit. The relationship ends there. Unless you kill/abuse children or torture people during the manufacture process of making your product, you can believe that Keanu Reeves really comes from the moon for all I care.

What say you?
 
To the first - Segregation has a poor track record of being any good.

To the second - I don't give money to people if I know that money is ending up used for shitty ends.
 
Making their own clubhouse only sounds good on paper. The problem is they shouldn't have the abiltiy to deny membership based on who you're in love with, or what does it for you sexually. At best it's elitism, and as Seraph said, at worst it's segregation. I feel it would be the latter. 'Equal but different' really isn't the same as being equal, because someone's being excluded. As a straight male, a main reason I left the Boy Scouts years ago was because I couldn't abide their homophobic fearmongering(they basically think gays are gonna sign up so they can go on camping trips and diddle kids). Drawing a line in the sand, having two different clubs would just further the rift, as if it were acceptable to feel that way.

The Chik-fil-A issue has nothing to do with their product. A person's opinion isn't always swayed by a single conversation. Repetition plays a big part. By this company throwing their hat in the ring, it's one more direction the argument is coming from, and a direction people aren't used to. It becomes overwhelming. Add to that the size of their wallet, and consider that if they're outspoken on the topic, they're in a position to donate generously to support their belief, if they haven't already. That's why people are voicing their stance against it, and don't want to purchase from their company -- politics and chicken sandwiches are two different things, but Chik-fil-A chose to tie them together, forcing people to take a stand.

Ultimately, I don't feel it's a matter of opinion. I feel it's a matter of human rights. It's not like I like mustard on my burger, you like ketchup. We're talking about people that just want to be seen as equals. The same as black people had to go through. The same as women had to go through.
 
Why shouldn't they be allowed to deny membership? 8[ It's... their club, and they have every right to set the rules. It's like whining and stamping your feet that they won't let a forty year old man join as a Boy Scout instead of a leader. No, dude, you're too old--SEGREGATION!!!! Or like a woman crying to be on an all-male pro football team. If you don't like the way that club sets its rules... join a club that you agree with. Why is that so hard? That's what she said.

There is nothing they could do with their money short of violence and death that would make me consider it above what I actually want from them. It's like, "shut up and feed me dinner, asshole." They put the shit together, it doesn't mean people had to care. You mean you just now realized that the company has a lot of money and can use it to support their own goals separate from you and the product you paid for? No shit. Unless they turn out being like Los Pollos Hermanos.
 
First one--- The scouts are an out-dated "club" anyways. I HATED girl scouts. I expected to join a troop and find a group of friends and do fun outdoorsy stuff. Nope. Because I was overweight, and went from a different school as the rest of the girls in my troop, I was treated like shit, and even discriminated and wasn't allowed to participate in some events.

Second one--- I think it is so stupid how both sides are using Chick-Fil-A as a political statement. The day they made that statement was the first time I ever ate there actually. Wasn't anything special. But yeah. All companies support stuff, and don't support other stuff. At this point, especially in America, that means we need to start buying "locally."

EVERY company has its evil side and its good side. I had this issue when I decided to stop shopping at Wal Mart. A lot of people assume its because of the whole taking away from small business thing. Nah. I've just had a lot of bad experiences at their stores and after being wrongfully accused of shop lifting, being threatened to be arrested if I didn't give them the supposed item I stole, and receiving no apology when they found no item on me, I decided to stop shopping there. I decided to start going to Target for my business and my mom was like "You can't shop there, they don't support the Salvation Army because they donate to the troops and Target doesn't support war."

...but Target donates to a lot of charities and they help the Goodwill...
 
*Ahem* If I may throw in my two cents......

Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995)

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000)

Verdicts: Freedom of association upheld. Government CANNOT use anti-discrimination laws to force groups to include members that provide significant contrast to their message. And to the best of my knowledge, these decisions have not been overturned.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Side note: I have nothing personal against those of different sexual orientation. However, even if it is not explicitly defined, the freedom of association is very much prevalent in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Unfair? Perhaps, but it's the freedom to associate oneself with those of his/her choosing that's part of what makes our country free.

But, to steal some of Muffin's words, it's a double-edged sword; there are good and bad things about it.

And to quote Seraph........"Segregation has a poor track record of being any good"


And to address the whole Chick-Fil-A issue......It's a fucking fast food restaurant, not the cluster-fuck that is Congress. Just order some damn food and go about your day.


Thank you for reading this post, and have a nice day.
 
Thank you for your input Muffin and Raz. Basically my thoughts exactly, particularly about the "cliquey" nature of the Scout program too. Why the fuck do they even WANT to be in there? The Scouts are fucking haters, lol.

As far as segregation goes, it's bullshit when applied to this. Like, the local yacht club wouldn't let me join and even though I don't have a yacht, I'm all upset and shit. I deserve to go to their party just because I wanna and I don't think I should HAVE to have a boat just to do it. Also, the white power group in my area wouldn't let my black friend join, and it totally hurt his feelings, so we're taking them to court. The world is so fucking unfair.
 
Most people who were frustrated with the news about the Boy Scouts and homosexual membership weren't concerned over the Boy Scouts' legal right to forbid homosexuals, nor was it about whether it was an outdated organization that more 'progressive' people should avoid having their kids sign up for. To many, including me, it is simply morally and ethically wrong of them to forbid homosexuals to join. That's what fueled the controversy.

As for Chick-Fil-A, how people spend their money has a lot more power than the joke of a vote they have. If they go to Chick-Fil-A and give them money they're supporting them. That includes their political and social character as an organisation in addition to whether they like the kind of fast food being served up. Chick-Fil-A was well known for having its roots in Christian Fundamentalism before the public condemnation of same-sex marriage by its COO. If anything they've softened their PR stance on homosexuality since then, though the publicly issued statement of the COO that got them headline news, which again to me is morally and ethically wrong, has served to highlight what kind of people are becoming powerful when you buy food from their restaurants.

Rudolph Quin said:
As far as segregation goes, it's bullshit when applied to this. Like, the local yacht club wouldn't let me join and even though I don't have a yacht, I'm all upset and shit. I deserve to go to their party just because I wanna and I don't think I should HAVE to have a boat just to do it. Also, the white power group in my area wouldn't let my black friend join, and it totally hurt his feelings, so we're taking them to court. The world is so fucking unfair.
Click to expand...

But these are straw men arguments. Are you unaware of that, or were you trying to troll?
 
Solyre said:
But these are straw men arguments. Are you unaware of that, or were you trying to troll?
Click to expand...

No, I'm not trolling. I just didn't take this discussion as seriously as you seem to be. I deeply apologize for my grave logical fallacy.

So, it is morally repugnant to exclude people because of sexuality, but it's not morally wrong to pressure a privately owned non-profit organization to change their rules based on their values? I am not defending the rule. I just thought it seemed a bit contradictory to the espoused value of "tolerance" those who oppose it seem to be trying to represent.

As for Chik-fil-A I am just going to accede that it's a difference in opinion that makes some people value what a fast food company thinks and does with their money.
 
Rudolph Quin said:
No, I'm not trolling. I just didn't take this discussion as seriously as you seem to be. I deeply apologize for my grave logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was taking the topic seriously. That shouldn't be too surprising when starting a topic on controversial issues. If it makes you feel any better I do feel over-zealous for my response. Kind of can't help it right now...

Rudolph Quin said:
So, it is morally repugnant to exclude people because of sexuality, but it's not morally wrong to pressure a privately owned non-profit organization to change their rules based on their values? I am not defending the rule. I just thought it seemed a bit contradictory to the espoused value of "tolerance" those who oppose it seem to be trying to represent.
Click to expand...

I think the "tolerance" thing is probably a misunderstanding. The majority who object to the Boy Scout's position on homosexuality don't simply want homosexuals to be tolerated, they want them to be accepted.

Also, excluding gays on principle and putting pressure on an organization to change its policy via protest are two different things. In this case yes, its morally repugnant to exclude gays because the basis for the discrimination is harmful prejudice. I have a hard time even imagining how peaceful protest could be said to be morally repugnant. I'm all ears though.
 
I was not marking the means as wrong but the goal they are trying to achieve. And it's not about which one is more "wrong". They're both wrong but one of them has a basic human right to set standards for what they believe in and a club they own. I am all for equality and acceptance, believe me, but if I make an organization that has a rule-set not agreeable to everyone but based on my own values, I would expect not to be pressured to change it just because I'm not being fair to everyone. You can't make everyone happy and there are plenty of avenues available to all different types of people to feel accepted and find their niche.
 
It's also because the Girl Scouts of America have changed their views about forty years ago and there are a lot of people within the Boy Scouts who want the rules changed but very very few people are making it so that rule won't change. Secret meetings and all that. It's mostly the people within the Boy Scouts themselves that want the rule changed - and the fact that those people are being ignored is what is making it a huge controversy. Also, if you want to end discrimination against a group of people who have the same rights as you do, then what better to start with than a huge organization who has been trying to fix those views anyways?

The people who have been raising the most outcry against the boy scouts firing gay people is...the boy scouts themselves.
 
That's funny, some of the things said here.
Segregation has always had a bad track record. I wish someone would tell that to the "Gay-Straight Alliance" groups and all the other groups that purposely have gays pushing to segregate themselves from others, then give the finger to everyone else while crying how wrong they've been treated (as if bullying happened to no one else).
Boycotting a company for whatever reason you like is completely your decision. Just don't cram it down other people's throats if they shop there. I'll never walk into a Walmart for the rest of my life for many reasons, but I'm not going to waste me breath and time trying to explain any of those reasons to anyone that shops there religiously.
The idea that homosexuals being banned from the Boy Scouts stems from a couple of pretty reasonable ideas: First, while it's debatable and I'll probably catch shit for it, there's some sources that show homosexuals are more likely to molest children. NAMBLA is even nice enough to exist to suppose this idea and write off molestation as love (reading the stories they offer can be quite sickening). Even if that weren't the case (no, I don't want to argue how true this is. No major study I've ever seen has honestly taken a stab at this to conclude either way), the main concern I can see that's very justifiable is that homosexuality is based on a simple concept: Sexuality. When you have a sexual deviation like homosexuality being displayed front and center, not to mention the male on male aspect of the interest, it's only going to highlight how likely things can go sour. Like it not, not many parents are going to be thrilled about the idea. At the end of the day, if you have no customers, you're no longer in business (or in this case, no use as a non-profit organization).
 
I can find you some links that show that straight men are more likely to molest children. Homosexuals are far less likely. And homosexuality is more natural than people seem to realize since it occurs in several animal groups such as lions.

Just my little two cents there.
 
I'd love to see you give an example to counter NAMBLA alone. Just one. A whole group dedicated to gay men molesting children. That's not even pointing out the statistics that would be easy to dig up.
As far as homosexuality being "natural", there's not a single study that has ever conclusively shown that it's biological or natural in any respect, even after all the effort to bend the conclusion that direction. Trying to state that animals can be homosexual concludes nothing about humans. It also concludes nothing about as to why these animals are homosexual.

Which really argues nothing about what I stated, Hahvoc.
 
Humans are animals. We're not special but people seem to think we're the best thing ever.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Anti-gayActivismandtheMisuseofScience_1.pdf

http://gaylife.about.com/b/2006/07/09/gay-men-and-child-molestation-myth-or-fact.htm

Try the American Psychology Association.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMupwUD8vzk And the Daily Show of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

I usually don't quote Wikipedia but here you go.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

http://discovermagazine.com/2011/jun/numbers-sex-500-gay-species-8x-penis-body

So there you go. There are my links. I can always find more, but I think I made my point. You might not want to argue with a biology major who actually looks up research on all things animals for a purpose. I don't just say things to say things. I find evidence and back up what I've said. Just because some people find man on man [not man on boy] love icky doesn't really justify blocking people out from an organization. There are a lot of myths about homosexuality because people were terrified of it around the middle ages because of the way Catholicism depicted it. Ancient Greece said homosexuality was okay. Asia said homosexuality was okay. Until Catholicism took true root, it was displayed as perfectly fine behavior. If you need links on that, I will gladly look those up as well.

Point being, there are studies out there and have data concluding that gays are not more likely. Don't just lump in a group of people because other human beings are messed up in the head and like to state otherwise without any factual evidence to the contrary.
 
Once again, Hahvoc, you're putting words in my mouth. Perhaps it's time you realized you're doing that and quit cutting people down for your own imagination.

Anywy, since you don't mind severely biased sources in your representation, then I won't feel bad about mine.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2010/jul/10072701

http://fathersforlife.org/dale/child1.html

I particularly like that your first link has so many holes in it's justification that it's disgustingly laughable. Of course gays aren't more likely to molest children. Especially when, for the purpose of the argument, you separate gay men from those who have sexual intercourse or interest in boys.

Homosexual parenting has had such small study sizes that it's hard to draw any conclusion. Especially when you've got studies that conclude either direction, mattering by what you're looking for.

Number 3 has a serious issue: What causes homosexuality then? Biology has never concluded any aspect of it being nature, beyond all the studies that seek so hard to prove it.

4 - 7. Filler for the article I suppose.

8 states that it's actually true, then offers an excuse. Shooting themselves in the foot.

9 Right from the first line: "Modern science cannot state conclusively what causes sexual orientation, but a great many studies suggest that it is the result of biological and environmental forces, not a personal "choice."" Well, since we want to skip around the issue by stating that biology and environment are the same thing...

10 relies on religious members to try oddball ways of "curing" homosexuality. No licensed psychology can ever try anything like that without losing their license. It's no wonder that it fails commonly enough. This falls into a serious issue about the DSM having removed homosexuality from even being a sexual deviation (like BDSM or any amount of fetishes.) Why was homosexuality ever even removed to begin with? Stonewall. Not any amount of scientific evidence.


Not sure what you're getting from the Daily Show. NAMBLA is very much a real group.

And again citing animals concludes nothing. Especially when they can't seem to give an explanation as to WHY an animal would turn homosexual.

So really that just leaves me wondering what your issue is? You're insisting that it's "okay" to be homosexual when I've never said otherwise. Which has all but effectively derailed the topic. What does any of that have to do with homosexuals in the boy scouts? As a parent who does as much research about homosexuality as they do about elections (Read: Practically none), it's not going to look good on any record that your son is in a place where there's older men that could potentially be sexually attracted to your child.
 
Nambla being a joke is sarcasm, which you clearly missed. Also, it's an organization comprised of exactly 1100 members, and the LGBT community has completely cut ties with the group in question because they don't believe in their philosophy and the things they want to be made into law.

Biology does conclude it being nature. It's a "failsafe" to keep populations from exploding much like sterility in males and infertility in females. Animals don't just "turn gay," just like human beings don't just "turn gay," since ya know, we're animals as well.

Sexual abuse is always going to be have an impact on mental faculties, but it doesn't conclude much with your link since it flipflops if we are going to be so nit-picky.

Animals are all instincts to a good degree compared to human beings who have had most of their instincts bred out of them. Why assume that they wouldn't be a good indication? They don't think about what their relationship might do to "effect the herd" when it doesn't have any actual effect except making hetero animals have more choices in their mates. They just did a story on one of the penguin groups at the zoo with a homosexual couple trying to incubate different objects because they wanted an egg. That's instinctive for them to take care of an egg but knew enough to know that they couldn't produce an egg together and kept trying to substitute.

Being gay isn't a mental illness, being into children is as you clearly defined in the last part of your post. A man or a woman could be sexually attracted to any children I could potentially have in the future but I wouldn't say "They must be gay!" That's pretty unfounded since, by psychology studies, children are "genderless" until they hit puberty which is why adult men or women find no sexual attraction to other people their age when they have a sexual attraction to children. Every person has a preference, and if a man finds little boys sexually attractive, that's his twisted preference.

As I've said, I won't cut people out of an organization because I somehow assume I know their life just because they happen to be gay or otherwise. If you don't do the research, you'll just remain in ignorance and since the Girl Scouts of America already changed their tune regarding homosexuality as well as most well-known organizations that deal in studying sexuality, psychology, and other mental and biological important fields, and how most of the organization of the Boy Scouts wants the rules changed to stop discrimination, well, it might just change things.
 
Wait a minute. You honestly believe homosexuality is some sort of "failsafe" to population control? Are you really daft enough to believe that? There really isn't much to say about it if you live in this fantasy world where there's a sweet explanation for everything. That' not even touching on the other aspects that you state (and I might add, without any sort of citation) that are ridiculous.
I'm particularly intrigued that you state one sexual preference isn't an illness, then another is. Is homosexuality not an illness where pedophilia is simply because one is viewed more wrong than the other?
 
I never said it was sexuality. I said it was a mental illness. Clearly you miss that part.

And I'm not "daft." I study this crap as I am a biology major and have read plenty of things stating that there is enough evidence within nature to back me up which you've ignored.

Hahvoc said:
Being gay isn't a mental illness, being into children is
Click to expand...

Firm Master said:
I'm particularly intrigued that you state one sexual preference isn't an illness, then another is. Is homosexuality not an illness where pedophilia is simply because one is viewed more wrong than the other?
Click to expand...

That right there is the biggest load of shit I'd read in quite awhile. Homosexuality isn't more wrong than being heterosexual. As a meme quote, "Seeing straight people kiss all my life never made me straight."

Being into children IS A MENTAL ILLNESS as I've stated before. I said preferences to clarify a point. Human beings always have preferences even when fucked up in the head.

Might wanna reread before you post and assume otherwise.
 
Firm Master said:
Then you can debate that with Hahvoc.
Click to expand...

did-someone-rustle-your-jimmies-.jpg


It seems this thread got way out of hand really fast. I don't even think you're in the same topic. And not to beat a dead horse but what you did say was kind of offensive to homosexuals, being as I am one, and yes, my jimmies were quite rustled by your statement(s) regarding homosexuality and pedophilia.

Anyhow gravitating back to the ORIGINAL topic of exclusion in the boy scouts, I actually feel Rudolph has a solid point as does Raz and Muffin in the corresponding topics; people have the right to association, first Amendment basics. If you don't LIKE the rules the club has in place then I suppose instead of attempting to join said club you should just avoid it and create your own. If your opinion on the matter is right or at least widely accepted YOUR organization will become the norm and the original organization will become obsolete.

For instance, if I wanted to create a Scout equidistant that was unisex and allowed gay members and banned all who show any sign of homophobia then I'm perfectly allowed too. If there are as many people upset about this situation as this thread seems to declare then my club will quickly over power the original boyscouts and, in due time, the original club will be obsolete or utterly non-existent.

Regardless of the situation though, butts on both sides of the argument will be hurt and you honestly can't do anything to stop it. Everyone is a critic and people are going to whine and complain even when they get there way. In the end no one wants equality, they want "justice" they want to feel SUPERIOR as payment for all the years of inferiority. This is a completely human emotion, but its whether or not you decide to act upon it that makes you a good person or someone destined to be a villain on Scooby-doo.

As per the subject of Chick-fil-a, who the hell cares?!? you can bitch all you want about their stance but your opinion and money is not going to sway this billion dollar corporation either way. It takes millions and millions of dollars and a huge gathering of people to change a stance of a corporation. As it stands, no one is currently organizing or boycotting in large enough numbers to even leave a dent. So if you're gay, eat your shitty chicken sandwich with pride, because your 2.98 did not condemn homosexuals. Even if you bought a chicken sandwich ever day for the rest of your life the only thing you'd effect is your cholesterol level.

SIDE NOTE: all proper nouns, such as boy scouts and Chic-fil-a are simply examples. These theories can apply to ANY company, ANY political stance, and ANY social group.
 
Hahvoc. Let's start off with one clear thing. I did not say homosexuality is wrong. Again, quit putting words in my mouth.

children are "genderless" until they hit puberty which is why adult men or women find no sexual attraction to other people their age when they have a sexual attraction to children.
Click to expand...
That would be a sexual preference, now wouldn't it?

Every person has a preference, and if a man finds little boys sexually attractive, that's his twisted preference.
Click to expand...
Alright then, it's a sexual preference. Glad we agree.

Being gay isn't a mental illness, being into children is
Click to expand...
Okay. And what's the distinction? What makes one an illness and the other not? The only answer I've gotten is that one is wrong and the other isn't.

As far as studying biology, congrats. If anything it shows a bias.

Dr. Nibbles, if it's something you're taking personally, it makes it very hard to discuss the issue. I'm not here to piss anyone off. I'm hear to share an alternate view. Call it devil's advocate if you want. I just hate seeing a topic turn into a blind circle jerk. You are right, though. This topic has gotten way out of hand. I still stand by my opinion that an average parent isn't going to be so thrilled about having a homosexual troop leader. In turn, the potential lost business wouldn't be welcome. Is it fair? Not really. Is it a business move? Naturally. You hear about a politician or CEO that gets caught fucking a mistress on the side and he is either booted from his job or resigns. It shows no reflection on his job. It shows a reflection on how customers will view the company.
 
Dr. Nibbles, if it's something you're taking personally, it makes it very hard to discuss the issue. I'm not here to piss anyone off. I'm hear to share an alternate view. Call it devil's advocate if you want. I just hate seeing a topic turn into a blind circle jerk.
Click to expand...

Perhaps offended was the wrong term to use (or rustled jimmies) the point I was trying to make is that AS a homosexual I'm drawing your attention to some REALLY harsh claims that I don't think you have the evidence to support. I'm not 100% defending everything Hahvy says but you are kinda jumping down her throat, which seems to be a sign of your OWN personal bias. If this is your opinion and you believe homosexuality is wrong, or that its natural or that the chicken came before the egg or whatever you're not wrong in holding your own opinion but simply accept that as your opinion and when others state theirs don't fight back with your own with a crusader's mentality. Especially if you're going to declare "playing devil's advocate" when shit starts to hit the fan; which it has.

The entire Homosexuality is a choice argument is the most flawed social argument of our times, and sadly is just as easily taken apart by one question as it being natural. The question is "Do you have any proof otherwise?" no, no we don't. And the longer we argue using flimsy theories as basis for our platforms instead of cold hard facts the longer this gay v straight bout will last. Its absolutely ridiculous that we're over a decade into the 21st century and gay marriage is still "A thing" and not a widely accepted and enforced law. Statistics should be our stance on such laws. The statistics of successful gay marriges to successful straight marriages. The number of criminals adopted out in comparison to gay and straight families. The number of serial rapists, molesters and murders that come from both the gay and straight communities. The number of successful gay men and women as opposed to unsucessful straight men and women. Why has no one EVER thought of using these as a platform for any argument? Why is it always "The bibble says so" or "its not natural" or "Its only natural". For Christ's sake, when did numbers and actual hard core fact become so obsolete?

This all considered, the entire question this thread is rested upon is choice. Choice of the organization and the potential members. If you feel threatened or offended by a group, getting them to change their rule will NOT remove that feeling. People within a group may abide by a rule but will not change their opinion accordingly. Just because the boy scout manual says gays are cool beans will not make the original members feel the same. Gays will still be persecuted for no reason in those groups for several generations, despite the rules. Just as blacks, just as women, just as american colonists, just as American Indians, just as Jewish Egyptians, just as goddamn assimilated tribes. If you truly want something to change, the best thing to do is START OVER. Eradicate the existing and rebuild.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom