Author Topic: A Scout is Brave, Loyal, Trustworthy... (Read 1067 times)

Thrawn · « **Reply #30 on:** December 02, 2002, 02:47:19 PM »

Guy 1 - "I want to murder you"

Guy 2 - "Don't murder me"

Guy 1 - "Don't foist your versions of morality on me."

midnight Target · « **Reply #31 on:** December 02, 2002, 03:17:58 PM »

How many of you were Boy Scouts?

I was Order of the Arrow and a Scout for many years. I can honestly say I never once discussed sex with my scout master, or ever saw him having sex with his partner of choice (his wife I assume).

I did however sit around the campfire with my buds talking for hours about the girls in school that gave us the chubby fits.

And as long as the BSA takes federal money of any kind they are subject to antidiscrimination laws.

A person's sexual orientation has no bearing on his or her ability to teach the skills in scouting.

From Memory:
A Scout is
Trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.

Don't see anything a gay scoutmaster can't teach.

StSanta · « **Reply #32 on:** December 02, 2002, 04:20:04 PM »

'Obedient' and 'reverent' could be to God and his laws, in which case homosexuality is sort of out.

As are all other sins, which as far as I can tell are just as bad.

Shuckins, even though I find the Boy Scouts discrimination oldfashioned and a little scary due to the phobia/ignorance, I find that they're entitled to accept/decline/remove individuals as they see fit. It's akin to that golf club that hosts the Masters - they're entitled to have an all male club.

If we weren't allowed to decide who to have in our own organisation, I wonder what our society would look like.

Pretty soon you'd be forced to have at least one member of each race as a close friend, as well as all handicapped people and whatever person PCness is covering for.

Edit: the minority foist their version unto the majority. When the majority do the same, they're just trying to address the 'inaccuracies of the minorities'.

Sucks to be a minority

miko2d · « **Reply #33 on:** December 02, 2002, 04:36:00 PM »

midnight Target: Don't see anything a gay scoutmaster can't teach.

What about scoutmistress? Would you mind either sharing the tent with your boy? Some people do.
Even soldiers in US army somtimes desire sexual privacy - when they can be sure no one around them finds them sexually attractive, like in the shower or sleeping barracks. That's why many oppose to co-ed barracks or gays in the military. Of course US soldiers are probably oversensitive wussies, unlike scouts or some of their parents...

miko

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #34 on:** December 02, 2002, 05:28:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
Ya, no blacks or jews either! The jews just do it to get closer to the kids parents money.

Your such an idiot Saurdaukar, you have no idea what you are talking about.

See? This is the kind of attitute Im talking about. What do blacks and Jews have to do with the argument? I dont supose youre heterosexually challenged Thrawn?

The issue here is not the blanket statement "Gays are bad people." But instead you must focus on the fact that anyone who encourages youth's to engage in inappropriate sexual conduct should NOT be in a Scout Master position. Pediphiles are people you would NOT want in this position because they volunteer for their own benifit. Some gays would also volunteer for their own benifit. Not all mind you, but I wouldnt be willing to take that chance.

Its really simple - the Boy Scouts are an organization for instilling age old values of leadership, trust, integrity, and bearing. To allow a homosexual, who obviously has different moral/ethical values, to take a hand in the growth of these boys is asking for trouble.

Would a lesbian be a proper role model for Girl Scouts? No. Absolutely not - and its no different here. There are certain people you want in certain positions - a gay as a Boy Scout Master is NOT one of them.

Next baseless accusation?

midnight Target · « **Reply #35 on:** December 02, 2002, 05:32:57 PM »

Never "shared a tent" or a shower with the scoutmaster either! Sheesh! Which scout troop were you guys in?

midnight Target · « **Reply #36 on:** December 02, 2002, 05:46:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Saurdaukar
See? This is the kind of attitute Im talking about. What do blacks and Jews have to do with the argument? I dont supose youre heterosexually challenged Thrawn?

The issue here is not the blanket statement "Gays are bad people." But instead you must focus on the fact that anyone who encourages youth's to engage in inappropriate sexual conduct should NOT be in a Scout Master position. Pediphiles are people you would NOT want in this position because they volunteer for their own benifit. Some gays would also volunteer for their own benifit. Not all mind you, but I wouldnt be willing to take that chance.

Its really simple - the Boy Scouts are an organization for instilling age old values of leadership, trust, integrity, and bearing. To allow a homosexual, who obviously has different moral/ethical values, to take a hand in the growth of these boys is asking for trouble.

Would a lesbian be a proper role model for Girl Scouts? No. Absolutely not - and its no different here. There are certain people you want in certain positions - a gay as a Boy Scout Master is NOT one of them.

Next baseless accusation?

Assuming you are heterosexual Saurdaukar, could YOU be trusted in a tent full of 12 year old girls? 11 year old? 10 year old? If not, you are one sick SOB, if you can be trusted then you have no point.

Homosexuals aren't out recruiting boy scouts to fill their ranks. They are simply born that way and other than their sexual preference are no different than you and I. Like I said, you have probably met and have been taught or coached by at least one homosexual in your lifetime, and you probably don't even know it.

I didn't learn to like girls from my scoutmaster ... did you?

StSanta · « **Reply #37 on:** December 02, 2002, 05:48:44 PM »

The issue here is not the blanket statement "Gays are bad people." But instead you must focus on the fact that anyone who encourages youth's to engage in inappropriate sexual conduct should NOT be in a Scout Master position.

This statement addresses both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Hterosexuals have drives/opinions etc just as homosexuals and might encourage youths to engage i...

Its really simple - the Boy Scouts are an organization for instilling age old values of leadership, trust, integrity, and bearing. To allow a homosexual, who obviously has different moral/ethical values, to take a hand in the growth of these boys is asking for trouble.

Logical fallacy. You state something is obvious when it's not. Your assertion that homosexuals have different moral/ethical values is questionable at best. They have a different sexual preference, but they might have the same ethical and moral values (with sexual choice being different) as heterosexuals.

You're suggesting that homosexuals cannot be ethical leaders. I'd like to know the scientific reason as to why it is. While you're at it, can you convince me that a heterosexual who likes oral sex (God didn't create a mouth to give sexual pleasure yadda ydaa argument) can be an ethical leader?

You'll have to do some sociological studies, and there's really some doubt whether those can be called scientific.

Thrawn · « **Reply #38 on:** December 02, 2002, 05:50:50 PM »

What's the similarity?

Blacks and jews have lived with prejudice and oppression. The same kind you meet homosexuals with.

"Its really simple - the Boy Scouts are an organization for instilling age old values of leadership, trust, integrity, and bearing. "

Homosexuals can't be or teach these values? Why? Because they are sexually attracted to members of the same sex? What a stuipid thing to imply.

"I dont supose youre heterosexually challenged Thrawn? "

What if I am gay?

"Would a lesbian be a proper role model for Girl Scouts? No. Absolutely not - and its no different here. There are certain people you want in certain positions - a gay as a Boy Scout Master is NOT one of them. "

roadkill. You are trying to marginalise gays because they give you the wilies. Immoral behaviour? Your the one that is displaying ignorance and predudice. I know homosexuals that are twice the person you are and would have no problem with them being my daughter scout leader.

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #39 on:** December 02, 2002, 06:52:35 PM »

Nope. I am not displaying ignorance or predudice. I am displaying logical thought - you are blinded by your own sick version of reality. If you cant understand the merits of my view, you most likely never will, so Ill spare a second explanation. In the end there are things that simply dont mix.

In addition to this - I have, in fact had a teacher who was gay. Did he go around announcing it? No. I found out from others - did it matter to me? No - because he was a good prof and his area of study had NOTHING to do with sexuality. Would I want my future son to sleep in a tent with him on a camping trip? diddly no.

gofaster · « **Reply #40 on:** December 03, 2002, 08:58:32 AM »

Wow, you guys got all worked up over the "homosexual scoutmaster" topic and completely ignored the "no atheists" policy. Interesting.

miko2d · « **Reply #41 on:** December 03, 2002, 09:20:23 AM »

StSanta: Logical fallacy. You state something is obvious when it's not. Your assertion that homosexuals have different moral/ethical values is questionable at best. They have a different sexual preference, but they might have the same ethical and moral values (with sexual choice being different) as heterosexuals.

Nothing of a sort. There is a thing caled "temptation" and most people who have not commited any criminal or immoral acts would still prefer not to place themselves or others in the way of temptation.

I have seen plenty of 11+year girls and 13+ year boys fully aware of their sexuality and willing and able to flirt and seduce for what it's worth and being great at it - and not aware of danger being young and inexperienced. Once girls discoved their femininity, they exercise it as much as possible on any available subjects. Final seduction may be not their original objective or not at all but they often try to get as close as possible - including contact, kisses, etc. not aware of danger and relying on their own or other people's self-control way too much.

Good morals is not a reason to place a healthy 25-year old male in a bedroom full of flirting 12-year old girls dead serious on sexually exiting him if not outright seducing him.
Same goes for boys/women guides - we definitely fantacised about our women guides (17+ year old) in soviet "pioneer" camps - and would not refuse going all the way, having no physical virginity to lose, risk of pregnancy, etc. That's why they slept separately and worked in pairs.

midnight Target: Never "shared a tent" or a shower with the scoutmaster either! Sheesh! Which scout troop were you guys in?

Have you though that you might have been deprived such experience exactly because one could have been homosexual and some authority outlawed it?

Of course being no atheist and no homosexual for religious reasons is good enough reason for them to exclude either. In that case they should certainly not get a cent of state funds as that would violate the Constitution. They would probably be better off without government money and regulations attached.

miko

Naso · « **Reply #42 on:** December 03, 2002, 10:32:11 AM »

Gents, you ARE ALL SICK!!!

How can be possible to like guys??? Or girls????

We already have the sheeps, and that is the natural way to do it!!!

sheees, where this world is going...

midnight Target · « **Reply #43 on:** December 03, 2002, 11:44:59 AM »

Quote

Have you though that you might have been deprived such experience exactly because one could have been homosexual and some authority outlawed it?

LOL, no.

I'm too old for that sort of thing. In the 60's no one even thought of it as a problem, because Gays were still mainly closeted.