Originally Posted By skinnerbox Given what SPP has written in the past, I doubt it was for my post #59. In that one sentence I quoted in my post, plano essentially stated that discrimination towards certain individuals was preferable to acceptance of the diversity which defines us all, and that the 'ideal standard' that his church preaches should be taught to all children so they don't grow up to be a 'detriment' to society through behavior deemed to be sinful by said church. The man is giving his tacit approval to bigotry and discrimination. Sorry, but that is massively offensive any way you slice it.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Oy vey was for the entire thing, but mainly plano. He's not even close to being on the same page here. It's the same old thing. I'd like to see his explanation as to why he's hetero but Dabob isn't. If he thinks it's a choice, then I get the idea he thinks it's a sin but as almost everyone but people like plano know, it's NOT a choice. It's how they were made, it's their DNA. And YES, it IS equivalent to race. As I said elsewhere once when Torri Hunter, now of the Tigers, said he'd have a problem accepting a gay teammate- A gay person can't do anything more about their sexual orientation than a black man can do about his skin color. Jackie Robinson would like to have a word with you, Torii.
Originally Posted By ecdc Gosh this brings back memories. I still remember the day I chose to be straight. I bounced back and forth, but the time to finally decide came when I was thirteen. I carefully weighed the options. On the one hand, I love boobs. On the other, I hate listening to people talk about their day and what a b* Karen in HR is. But...I was thirteen so the boobs won out. Yeah, there are moments when I wonder if I made the right choice, mostly during passive-aggressive statements about my behavior. But I made the choice and I stand by my decisions. I wonder when plano chose to be straight?
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "1. I believe it is detrimental to a society when we start becoming more obsessed with affirming everyone than in collectively teaching our children that there is an ideal standard to live by. I believe a mom and dad together raising families IS the ideal. We become so afraid of offending anyone that we are willing to compromise what best supports a healthy society for the sake of being accepted. This applies to so much of what is happening in our society other than just the rise of gay relationships." Soooooo like I said 30 posts ago, you don't like gay people because they don't fit your idea of an IDEAL world. You won't say why or how two men raising children, or two women raising children are any less better than a man and women, only that they are. You won't say how gays are any less ideal for society, only that they are. You keep saying they aren't as good, they are detrimental, they aren't ideal, but you never actually have any statistics, or hell, even any actual reasons to back up your opinions. You just think they're icky, admit it.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Look, I understand the revisionist history about words and texts in the Bible to justify certain beliefs or lifestyles*** or prejudices...
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I am one of those crazy Christians who believe that God has had his hand on this nation since our founding. Blessing us like no other nation*** I find this sentiment both curious and laughable at the same time. Why, in particular, would a god favor America? It's hardly the most devout nation on Earth, Christian or otherwise, if it ever was to begin with (even in the nasty "kill the witches" days I'd wager you could find some other nations even more fanatical out there at any given time). Certainly it can't be called the most moral of nations, either. Not with all the massacres of native peoples and slavery and multitude of wars and all that. Heck, wouldn't a righteous god favor oh, I dunno, Switzerland or someplace more neutral like that? And even if you want to argue that we only "fight the bad guys", I refer you back to the whole slavery and genocide thing. Can't escape it. So why then? Why do so many Americans think that a god would favor them above all others? I've heard this so many times, from zealots and regular folks alike, and it strikes me that I've never heard such talk from any but the most fanatical of countries. I could certainly imagine a Saudi Arabian saying something similar, but could you imagine a Canadian or a Greek person saying this?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<You keep saying they aren't as good, they are detrimental, they aren't ideal, but you never actually have any statistics, or hell, even any actual reasons to back up your opinions.>> Just like the pro-Prop 8 lawyers. Which is why they're going to lose. Game over.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I had a very interesting discussion about this topic on a weekend scout outing with 3 other adult leaders. One of them has been in Scouts since he was a kid himself, and has earned pretty much every knot (the little badges an adult leader wears on his/her uniform) that exists, and the other two have a combined 60 years of Scouting leadership. Politically, the 4 of us covered much of the spectrum. And yet, each of us agreed that the new policy was ridiculous, and that it is way past time when we get over this backward view of what being gay is and is not. If you can get a couple of hardline 2nd Amendment conservatives and a pair of moderate/liberals to agree on something, I think it indicates how far we've come on this issue. The real issue here is that a large chunk of current Scouts are chartered with Catholic, LDS and other religious institutions. Scouting fears a backlash and a huge exodus from the program. So this is a split the baby approach which usually winds up with no one happy. But again, "A Scout is Brave." That means doing the right thing, not the easy thing.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan The other unknown is, will more parents give Scouting a fresh look if this policy is removed? That's the sort of thing that will advance the change faster than anything else. If the BSA heard from a large number of people who have intentionally avoided the program with their kids, but might give it a try if things change, that would help offset the number of religious hardliners who will surely bail. Or people who would be willing to donate money to support Scouting, to make up for the dollars that will be lost if some leave the organization.
Originally Posted By ecdc One important part of this story is that this new policy closely mirrors LDS Church policy. Do not underestimate how intertwined the LDS Church is with Scouting. The church sponsors fully 1/3 of all Boy Scout troops in the country. The LDS Church membership records keep track of members who have identified as gay, in part to ensure that those members are never given a calling (LDS-speak for assignment) that puts them in direct contact with children. There remains in the church a deep-seated ignorance and bigotry toward gay people that influences these policies, and I would bet serious money it's influenced the Boy Scouts.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 What's the current enrollment in the Scouts these days? I never was one myself but I had a number of friends that were. But these days I can't think of any friends or family with sons that are involved in it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan The frustration for me is that I know how good this program is for youth, I've seen a lot of kids lives changed as they learn various skills that can be applied throughout life. You get an understanding of nature by actually spending time in it that cannot be replicated by books, video, app. And in a nation battling with obesity, spending a weekend hiking and exploring, in the fresh air, planning and preparing meals, pitching ones own tent, doing a patrol line to make sure the site looks better than before arrival -- this is all truly great stuff. My son was late in learning how to swim. He had a fear of deeper water. On one weekend outing, the older boys in his troop, on their own, spent time working with him to help him learn to swim and pass his swim test. He was extremely proud that he passed, and these boys never made a big deal about it. Thankfully, their Scoutmaster watched it all happening from a distance and was able to share it with us. My son was voted Quartermaster for his troop. Now, this was a kid that could not clean his room, and yet he kept the troop's storage unit in perfect order, meticulously tracking who had what lantern, tents, etc. The Scouting experience is vastly underrated. In many people's minds, it is something from the 50s, which is wrong except as it pertains to this outdated policy on gay Scouts and adult leaders. In an organization known for producing future leaders, they should demonstrate that real leadership involves making difficult but necessary calls.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer It's unfortunate, 2oony, because all the Scouts are doing is marginalizing themselves.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I feel about the rumored change (still not confirmed, was it?) kind of the way I felt about civil unions. A step forward to be sure, but still not where it needs to be. If I remember my scouting correctly, a scout is not only brave but also "loyal." The rumored policy essentially ends all loyalty to the person once he ages out of scouts. So even if that person wanted to give back, volunteer his time, and maybe help younger people find the value that he found in scouting... nope. We think you actually just want to have sex with underage kids. I also think this policy may have the shelf life of civil unions; in other words, it won't be long before it will be seen as the half-measure it is. And the Scouts will have to decide whether losing some ignorant people is more worrisome than losing the growing number of non-ignorant. This, of course, will indeed be complicated by their relationship with the LDS and other churches. The Girl Scouts, it's worth noting, dealt with all of this and came out on the right side quite some time ago.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>There remains in the church a deep-seated ignorance and bigotry toward gay people that influences these policies, and I would bet serious money it's influenced the Boy Scouts.<< I am sure this has a lot to do with it. Remember than several months ago, the original trial balloon was getting rid of the policy entirely. I am sure that waffle version is the result of "negotiations". I would expect that the LDS could easily replicate the scouting program, give it some other name, which would be a serious competitor to BSA. I'm sure this is why they're trying to ease into change. >>What's the current enrollment in the Scouts these days?<< According to Wikipedia, 27 million youth and 1 million adult volunteers. With much more intense homework and school schedules and organized sports leagues, Scouts doesn't attract as many youth as it did decades ago when kids had much more unsupervised free time. I'm a scoutmaster at a school for the blind. What is unique in a disabled unit is that scots don't age out at 18 or 21. They can remain active pretty much as long as they want. until recently, we had a 30 year old in our troop. We have both boys and girls, as we are also a Venturing crew (which is co-ed, ages 14-21). Largely because of the policy on gays, kids are prohibited from wearing their Scout uniforms to school in many places. When I was a kid, half a dozen boys would wear their uniform on the day of Pack meetings. So a key visibility (and recruitment) tool is gone, thanks to a discriminatory holdover from another generation.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan The Girl Scouts, it's worth noting, dealt with all of this and came out on the right side quite some time ago.<< They did, and they paid a price at the time as well. A few other groups popped up promising more "traditional" experience, and to this day Girl Scouts are viewed by many as too liberal. I really thought that once the military changed their position on this, the BSA would follow suit. It gave them easy cover and they really should frame it around that. "If it's good enough for the brave men and women of our armed forces, it's good enough for the BSA." Basically, what you have is a lot of adults screwing up otherwise excellent programs for kids with a lot of their own hangups, biases, ignorance and issues. Get the hell out of the way and let the kids have fun and learn cool stuff.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Girl Scouts is a great counterbalance to the subtly misogynistic influences my daughter sees at her Catholic school. I think people started thinking that the Girl Scouts became too liberal when they started working toward badges in things other than sewing and cooking.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I was a Scout and was about an hour shy of getting my Eagle badge. I came from a family of Scouts as my mother and her siblings grew up on a Scout camp that my grandfather was the Ranger for. A Scout is Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Couteous, Kind,Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, Reverent. I think I got all of those from memory. I don't recall anyone ever telling me that a Scout was "Straight" though I think if they really wanted to welcome gay youths they might have to do something about the brown uniforms. I have to admit that my feeling about gays in the Scouts has changed as my feelings in general have changed over the years. As a result, I understand the feelings of some that have strong opposition and I don't harbor any ill will toward them. The bottom line is that kids will be exposed to homosexuality one way or other and the earlier the better in terms of developing an understanding and appreciation for diversity. Scouting does not have the luxury of turning way volunteers and they should embrace anyone who has a clear record in my opinion. In high school I was the only "straight" guy in a barbershop quartet. If it was possible to "catch the gayness" by proximity alone then surely I'd be gay now. I consider myself a good Catholic and a good Christian. That said, I think the bible has a lot of things questionable and downright wrong. Homosexuality is one of those things
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I don't recall anyone ever telling me that a Scout was "Straight" though I think if they really wanted to welcome gay youths they might have to do something about the brown uniforms.<< They probably didn't. But, a lot of ignorant people refer to the phrase "morally straight" (part of the Scout Promise) and try to twist it into being straight in that way. >>Scouting does not have the luxury of turning way volunteers and they should embrace anyone who has a clear record in my opinion.<< Boy howdy. And again, by adhering to the BSA's youth protection policies, none of this would ever be an issue.
