The Boy Scouts: Caught in the Culture Wars:
Conservative and objective as I am, there is wisdom here. Not kicking boys out for what *might* just be a passing confusion, makes sense.
But I no more want my son to go camping with homosexuals than I want to just "let slide" the special needs homosexual who hit on him this year in the 4th grade (a situation that will sort itself out as the boys are separated next year).
I'm Outside the Autistic Asylum!
RSS Feed link
The crazy stuff I can't post anyplace else
Introduction to Wonko the Sane and Outside the Asylum, which this blog is named after.
17 comments:
I can see where this never had to become an issue. It appears that gay activists made an issue out of it. Now that it has become an issue, I think they did the right thing saying that a scout would not be rejected based on sexual preference alone.
One interesting comment came from a homeschooling mother who had already taken her kids out of scouting- because of all the HETEROSEXUAL sex talk.
I'm to the point as I see the scouts as primarily an organization grooming kids for life as a porn star. I don't want my son anywhere near it.
"I'm to the point as I see the scouts as primarily an organization grooming kids for life as a porn star. I don't want my son anywhere near it."
That's a bit extreme, don't you think?
Yes it is very extreme. But I have no other explanation for trying to force 14 year olds into sexual roles, instead of keeping sex out of the scouts.
And I have no other explanation for activists trying to force sexuality into the scouts.
"But I have no other explanation for trying to force 14 year olds into sexual roles, instead of keeping sex out of the scouts."
That's not what the change does. It just say that a boy will not be rejected based on sexual persuasion alone. That seems fair and those who have a problem with that minor additional language should be ashamed of themselves.
That's the "politically correct" wording. Even the gay activists say they will not stop until gay scouts become gay scout leaders and have *full* access to the boys without supervision.
This can't be a good development, and it WILL result in lawsuits within the next 20 years no different than the decision to allow homosexuals into the Catholic priesthood.
"Even the gay activists say they will not stop until gay scouts become gay scout leaders and have *full* access to the boys without supervision."
But that's not what this change does. You can't judge this change by what future changes might follow it.
No, what this change does is just assure me that if my son is invited on a Boy Scout campout, he'll be forced to share a tent and shower facilities with older boys that may choose to rape him, and if he complains about the rape, he'll just be labeled a homophobe like I was in the late 1980s when I rejected the advances of predatory gays.
It didn't ruin my life back then, but it would today, EITHER way it turns out.
"Homophobe" is a word that might be overused. But in your case it most definitely applies. You can't let a bad experience turn you against a whole class of people and you shouldn't teach your bigotry to your son.
I don't know why you want to promote homosexuality, Bill. But every time you use the word homophobe, every time you put down the disabled and claim they should be murdered before birth, every time you support divorce, you are promoting a world that has no room, no tolerance, for heterosexuality at all.
I can guess, but my guess would just be a guess. I don't know why you want to attack everybody who is for heterosexuality, but you keep doing it rather consistently.
And every time you do it, you make homosexuals look more authoritarian and more oppressive.
Every action by every human being has an effect on every other human being. Chaotic math applies to human civilizations.
So yes, you are attacking people for their heterosexuality and attempt to keep a heterosexual civilization. You instead prefer to make homosexuality, a mental illness, normal and preferred over heterosexuality. That is the entire purpose of why George Weinberg accepted a very large bribe to invent the word "homophobia" to begin with. I recognize the bias and the agenda quite easily, and as long as you continue to support that bias, you are indeed no better than any other fascist regime.
It may be you are only a pawn in the game, but as long as you play the game, you cannot deny that the game exists.
As for your vaulted tolerance, it is only intolerance in disguise. You aren't fooling me for a second with your "everybody is homophobic unless they specifically accept a lifestyle that is contrary to biology" stance. Might as well drop the disguise and just support your side's intolerance openly.
If you truly supported tolerance, you'd support civil unions for everybody- including heterosexuals and polygamists. But you don't. You support only gay marriage as a solution- only the destruction of the natural biological order of all mammals. And THAT is intolerant in the extreme.
"You support only gay marriage as a solution- only the destruction of the natural biological order of all mammals. And THAT is intolerant in the extreme."
No. I believe in a "live and let live" approach to life. You should give it a try.
"I tried "Live and let live" when I was in my teens and twenties; all it led to is pain and misery and attracting immoral people who would rob me."
I think you should give it another try. You've had bad experiences in your life that have turned you against society. It seems like some sort of paranoia.
"When I tried to meet the homosexuals halfway, all I got for my trouble was being labeled a bigot."
Somehow, I can't imagine that your meeting someone halfway would be enough for the other person.
"There is no reason behind being tolerant of the left wing- give them an inch, they'll set up a gas chamber for the evil conservatives."
Yes. That's what we left wingers want to do. Put evil conservatives in gas chambers. Is there something in the air or water where you live?
Yep, that's why Obama signed the NDAA 2012, after first making sure it required his justice department to write warrants for people naming them terrorists.
August 4th. That's the deadline. Either Obama backs down, or things start getting REALLY violent.
"Either Obama backs down, or things start getting REALLY violent."
More crazy talk.
No, a honest reading of the NDAA 2012 and recent administration arguments about the power of the presidency to oppose terrorism, as well as lists of who the FBI thinks are terrorists. Read those links I wrote back in 2011 when the NDAA 2012 was being debated.
Well, that and the recent revelation I had that there isn't much difference between a 400 lb mustard gas canister and a human being when it comes to incineration- and the incinerator has already been built in Hermiston and happens to be finishing its job of getting rid of leftover WWI weapons in, gasp, August.
Post a Comment