Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

One Christian Bigot’s Take on What Will Happen Now That the Boy Scouts of America Will Admit Gay Youth

Posted by   + Show Post


May 26, 2013
by: 

In the wake of the Boy Scouts of America’s decision to allow gay members, we have basically seen reactions from three different groups of people:

1) You have the people (like me) who are disappointed that the BSA still bans gay scout leaders and atheists. The group took a nice baby step in the right direction, but they are still a bigoted organization as far as we’re concerned.

2) You have the people — relatively few of them, I would think — who are just proud that the BSA finally let in gay scouts. They’re less concerned about the other bans and are just celebrating what they consider a huge step forward.

3) You have the religious conservatives, who think the BSA has stained its reputation by caving in to the public outcry and gave up one of the best things it had going for it.

Regarding this last group… what exactly are they worried about?

Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel Action gives us some insight into the fear:

What’s the next step? Activists now demand that adult men who desire sex with other males (“gay” scout masters) be allowed to take your sons camping overnight. Soon they’ll be insisting that “transgender boys” (girls who wish they were boys) be allowed to join as well.

What a camping trip! Imagine the pup tent. Your son and Jimmy — who’s got a crush on him — along with Billy and Billy’s boyfriend Bobby, all snuggly warm in the middle of nowhere. But make room for Sammy (formerly Suzie) and Sammy’s boyfriend Gary (formerly Gertrude).

Don’t forget to hang the disco ball.

So… implying that gay leaders would molest the children and that gay scouts (who are barely old enough to even have crushes) are automatically going to cuddle up next to their fellow troop members… and throwing in some transphobic comments just for good measure. Way to be rational there. (Edit: I was referring to Cub Scouts not being old enough to want to cuddle. Sorry for the confusion!)

In other words, the Christian Right has no good reason to be worried. All they have are stereotypes rooted in bigotry and their own paranoia. It’s the same thing we see when it comes to marriage equality and it’s the same thing we saw when it came to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

My favorite bit of delusion thinking, though, comes in the form of conservative columnists and commenters who say that the BSA is now a godless organization.

A godless organization that refuses to admit godless people.

There’s some Christian logic for you.

by on May. 27, 2013 at 3:12 AM
Replies (31-40):
TruthSeeker.
by Milami on May. 27, 2013 at 12:44 PM

 I am number 2. When an organization has rules in place for so long it is important to celebrate the small steps and hope they will lead to larger ones.

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on May. 27, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Only if you are comparing the actual acts.

I am comparing the theory of allowing people their own choices where bigotry and intolerance are involved.

Slavery is indeed is more obviously wrong. But under your assumption of, "People should be allowed their choices" it fits.

Unless you mean, "People should be allowed their choices as long as I agree with their choices".

As I said earlier. Intolerance should not be tolerated.


Quoting JTROX:

The choice for slavery involves owning another person.  Allowing people to make choices about who they spend time with, or what activities they choose to participate in, are not any where in the same category as owning slaves.  That is just plain silly to try and compare them.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


Because it simplifies things and proves the point.

You say people should be allowed their choices.

So if someone wants to bring back slavery they should be allowed those choices. If someone wants to take away a womans right to vote they should be allowed those choices.

Does that sound silly? It does. Just because you change the bigotry/intolerance to something that hasn't been abolished a long time ago doesn't make it okay.

Intolerance should not be tolerated. If the Boy Scouts of America want to hold onto their bigotry and intolerance other people should point it out and stop funding them in hopes that they change.

Because intolerance should not be tolerated.


Quoting JTROX:

You're back to the slave thing again.  LOL  Completely different than people making choices for themselves and their families.


Quoting brookiecookie87:

Intolerance should not be tolerated. If someone decides they want slaves and they believe they should have them because someone else is inferior. That choice needs to be addressed.

Why did the BSA hold that vote? Because people were pointing out the intolerance/Bigotry that existed there and because of it they were losing funding and respect from people.

If people kept tolerating their intolerance nothing would have changed.


Quoting JTROX:

The BSA held a vote.  

It seems to me that you are suggesting that choices should be taken away, by stating multiple times that intolerance should not be tolerated.  

I disagree.  People should be allowed their choices.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


And no one is taking that choice away. The Boy Scouts of America were not forced into being PC. People just realized how intolerant and bigoted they were being and didn't want to fund them anymore.

This is America. People should have the freedom to donate/fund whoever they want to donate/fund. And they do have that right. The government didn't step in and say, "Change your rules". People/businesses spoke with their wallets and then the Boy Scouts of America voted and changed their rules on their own.




Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

LucyMom08
by Gold Member on May. 27, 2013 at 12:47 PM

 My question is this...kids are innocent and inclusive, until we teach them differently...why would you purposely teach a child to discriminate against others?

And how does SSM oppress you?

Quoting dlkht:

 My question is this... Why do all associations have to be inclusive to everyone? Why cant they just start another association and have their own mission statement and goals? 

Why do gays have to redefine the word marriage?  Why cant they call it a legal partnership? The problem seems to be that in order to be inclusive to everyone you have to opress someone else.  So just make room for both.

 

fireangel5
by Gold Member on May. 27, 2013 at 12:48 PM
3 moms liked this

i don't really understand something. Why would an atheist want to join the scouts? To me, that is the same as wanting to go to a Catholic school but not take religion class, not attend school mass, and complain that the school prayers together each morning and afternoon. Knowing the oath mentions God, knowing they recognize an obligation to God,etc, why would you, not believing in God, want to be exposed to that? Why join if you can't recite the oath?  I guess I really don't get why anyone would want to join a group that they really don't fit in to, one in which you cannot fully participate. 

JTROX
by Gold Member on May. 27, 2013 at 12:50 PM

You are so silly.  They are very much different.  

People should be allowed their choices.  You disagree with that.  Stick with that.  

Quoting brookiecookie87:

Only if you are comparing the actual acts.

I am comparing the theory of allowing people their own choices where bigotry and intolerance are involved.

Slavery is indeed is more obviously wrong. But under your assumption of, "People should be allowed their choices" it fits.

Unless you mean, "People should be allowed their choices as long as I agree with their choices".

As I said earlier. Intolerance should not be tolerated.


Quoting JTROX:

The choice for slavery involves owning another person.  Allowing people to make choices about who they spend time with, or what activities they choose to participate in, are not any where in the same category as owning slaves.  That is just plain silly to try and compare them.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


Because it simplifies things and proves the point.

You say people should be allowed their choices.

So if someone wants to bring back slavery they should be allowed those choices. If someone wants to take away a womans right to vote they should be allowed those choices.

Does that sound silly? It does. Just because you change the bigotry/intolerance to something that hasn't been abolished a long time ago doesn't make it okay.

Intolerance should not be tolerated. If the Boy Scouts of America want to hold onto their bigotry and intolerance other people should point it out and stop funding them in hopes that they change.

Because intolerance should not be tolerated.


Quoting JTROX:

You're back to the slave thing again.  LOL  Completely different than people making choices for themselves and their families.


Quoting brookiecookie87:

Intolerance should not be tolerated. If someone decides they want slaves and they believe they should have them because someone else is inferior. That choice needs to be addressed.

Why did the BSA hold that vote? Because people were pointing out the intolerance/Bigotry that existed there and because of it they were losing funding and respect from people.

If people kept tolerating their intolerance nothing would have changed.


Quoting JTROX:

The BSA held a vote.  

It seems to me that you are suggesting that choices should be taken away, by stating multiple times that intolerance should not be tolerated.  

I disagree.  People should be allowed their choices.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


And no one is taking that choice away. The Boy Scouts of America were not forced into being PC. People just realized how intolerant and bigoted they were being and didn't want to fund them anymore.

This is America. People should have the freedom to donate/fund whoever they want to donate/fund. And they do have that right. The government didn't step in and say, "Change your rules". People/businesses spoke with their wallets and then the Boy Scouts of America voted and changed their rules on their own.





brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on May. 27, 2013 at 1:03 PM

You do realized I just said the acts are different, right? Of course slavery is MUCH worse than anything the Boy Scouts have done. That's not what is being compared.

What is being compared is someone saying, "I believe in slavery. That is my choice. Don't be intolerant of my choice to have slaves". In that regards it is the same (Not the act of slavery but the action of someone making that their choice and expecting everyone to tolerate their choice).

Intolerance should not be tolerated.

That is not the same as saying, "People should not have choices". Because people should be allowed to make their choices. But the moment those choices start involving discrimination based on bigotry/intolerance it should be challenged.

Intolerance should never be tolerated. Just because you want to be able to intolerant to others doesn't mean you should be able to.


Quoting JTROX:

You are so silly.  They are very much different.  

People should be allowed their choices.  You disagree with that.  Stick with that.  

Quoting brookiecookie87:

Only if you are comparing the actual acts.

I am comparing the theory of allowing people their own choices where bigotry and intolerance are involved.

Slavery is indeed is more obviously wrong. But under your assumption of, "People should be allowed their choices" it fits.

Unless you mean, "People should be allowed their choices as long as I agree with their choices".

As I said earlier. Intolerance should not be tolerated.


Quoting JTROX:

The choice for slavery involves owning another person.  Allowing people to make choices about who they spend time with, or what activities they choose to participate in, are not any where in the same category as owning slaves.  That is just plain silly to try and compare them.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


Because it simplifies things and proves the point.

You say people should be allowed their choices.

So if someone wants to bring back slavery they should be allowed those choices. If someone wants to take away a womans right to vote they should be allowed those choices.

Does that sound silly? It does. Just because you change the bigotry/intolerance to something that hasn't been abolished a long time ago doesn't make it okay.

Intolerance should not be tolerated. If the Boy Scouts of America want to hold onto their bigotry and intolerance other people should point it out and stop funding them in hopes that they change.

Because intolerance should not be tolerated.


Quoting JTROX:

You're back to the slave thing again.  LOL  Completely different than people making choices for themselves and their families.


Quoting brookiecookie87:

Intolerance should not be tolerated. If someone decides they want slaves and they believe they should have them because someone else is inferior. That choice needs to be addressed.

Why did the BSA hold that vote? Because people were pointing out the intolerance/Bigotry that existed there and because of it they were losing funding and respect from people.

If people kept tolerating their intolerance nothing would have changed.


Quoting JTROX:

The BSA held a vote.  

It seems to me that you are suggesting that choices should be taken away, by stating multiple times that intolerance should not be tolerated.  

I disagree.  People should be allowed their choices.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


And no one is taking that choice away. The Boy Scouts of America were not forced into being PC. People just realized how intolerant and bigoted they were being and didn't want to fund them anymore.

This is America. People should have the freedom to donate/fund whoever they want to donate/fund. And they do have that right. The government didn't step in and say, "Change your rules". People/businesses spoke with their wallets and then the Boy Scouts of America voted and changed their rules on their own.







Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

Linus77
by Member on May. 27, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Well...we are talking about kids and teens...you know...the issue we have of our kids getting sexually active younger and younger?  Putting gay kids in with kids of their own sex...what's to prevent them from pursuing a person and wearing them down to give in to what they want?  How is this any different from the risk of putting boys and girls together in the same conditions?  Sexuality should have no place in such an organization.  And putting gay kids in there is doing just that.  No, it doesn't seem fair to THOSE kids,  but kids have proven to be unreliable and have no self control when it comes to sex.

For me, this isn't about religion. This is about putting young kids in the hands of those who are attracted to their sex.  We don't put men in charge of girls, or a woman in charge of the boys, neither do we put boys and girls together in those situations for that reason.  It's dangerous.

jaxTheMomm
by Platinum Member on May. 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Gay kids aren't anymore sexual than straight kids.  

BTW, there is a difference between "gay" and "pedophile".  Pedophiles are attracted to children.  

Quoting Linus77:

Well...we are talking about kids and teens...you know...the issue we have of our kids getting sexually active younger and younger?  Putting gay kids in with kids of their own sex...what's to prevent them from pursuing a person and wearing them down to give in to what they want?  How is this any different from the risk of putting boys and girls together in the same conditions?  Sexuality should have no place in such an organization.  And putting gay kids in there is doing just that.  No, it doesn't seem fair to THOSE kids,  but kids have proven to be unreliable and have no self control when it comes to sex.

For me, this isn't about religion. This is about putting young kids in the hands of those who are attracted to their sex.  We don't put men in charge of girls, or a woman in charge of the boys, neither do we put boys and girls together in those situations for that reason.  It's dangerous.



JTROX
by Gold Member on May. 27, 2013 at 1:20 PM

I understand that your pov only includes certain people having the right to make choices.

I'm sorry you can't grasp the major distinctions between choosing to own another person, thus taking away their rights, and merely making choices for your own life.

I think everyone should have the right to make choices for themselves.  You don't.  I am not the intolerant one.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

You do realized I just said the acts are different, right? Of course slavery is MUCH worse than anything the Boy Scouts have done. That's not what is being compared.

What is being compared is someone saying, "I believe in slavery. That is my choice. Don't be intolerant of my choice to have slaves". In that regards it is the same (Not the act of slavery but the action of someone making that their choice and expecting everyone to tolerate their choice).

Intolerance should not be tolerated.

That is not the same as saying, "People should not have choices". Because people should be allowed to make their choices. But the moment those choices start involving discrimination based on bigotry/intolerance it should be challenged.

Intolerance should never be tolerated. Just because you want to be able to intolerant to others doesn't mean you should be able to.

Quoting JTROX:

You are so silly.  They are very much different.  

People should be allowed their choices.  You disagree with that.  Stick with that.  

Quoting brookiecookie87:

Only if you are comparing the actual acts.

I am comparing the theory of allowing people their own choices where bigotry and intolerance are involved.

Slavery is indeed is more obviously wrong. But under your assumption of, "People should be allowed their choices" it fits.

Unless you mean, "People should be allowed their choices as long as I agree with their choices".

As I said earlier. Intolerance should not be tolerated.


Quoting JTROX:

The choice for slavery involves owning another person.  Allowing people to make choices about who they spend time with, or what activities they choose to participate in, are not any where in the same category as owning slaves.  That is just plain silly to try and compare them.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

Because it simplifies things and proves the point.

You say people should be allowed their choices.

So if someone wants to bring back slavery they should be allowed those choices. If someone wants to take away a womans right to vote they should be allowed those choices.

Does that sound silly? It does. Just because you change the bigotry/intolerance to something that hasn't been abolished a long time ago doesn't make it okay.

Intolerance should not be tolerated. If the Boy Scouts of America want to hold onto their bigotry and intolerance other people should point it out and stop funding them in hopes that they change.

Because intolerance should not be tolerated.


Quoting JTROX:

You're back to the slave thing again.  LOL  Completely different than people making choices for themselves and their families.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

Intolerance should not be tolerated. If someone decides they want slaves and they believe they should have them because someone else is inferior. That choice needs to be addressed.

Why did the BSA hold that vote? Because people were pointing out the intolerance/Bigotry that existed there and because of it they were losing funding and respect from people.

If people kept tolerating their intolerance nothing would have changed.

Quoting JTROX:

The BSA held a vote.  

It seems to me that you are suggesting that choices should be taken away, by stating multiple times that intolerance should not be tolerated.  

I disagree.  People should be allowed their choices.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

And no one is taking that choice away. The Boy Scouts of America were not forced into being PC. People just realized how intolerant and bigoted they were being and didn't want to fund them anymore.

This is America. People should have the freedom to donate/fund whoever they want to donate/fund. And they do have that right. The government didn't step in and say, "Change your rules". People/businesses spoke with their wallets and then the Boy Scouts of America voted and changed their rules on their own.


dlkht
by Member on May. 27, 2013 at 1:21 PM

 Actually you dont have to teach kids how to be bad, you have to teach them how to be good.  Having seperate clubs for different kids is not discrimination. 

The club had a mission statement that described what their goals and purposes was.  If you dont like that then start another club. Whats the problem?

 

 

Quoting LucyMom08:

 My question is this...kids are innocent and inclusive, until we teach them differently...why would you purposely teach a child to discriminate against others?

And how does SSM oppress you?

Quoting dlkht:

 My question is this... Why do all associations have to be inclusive to everyone? Why cant they just start another association and have their own mission statement and goals? 

Why do gays have to redefine the word marriage?  Why cant they call it a legal partnership? The problem seems to be that in order to be inclusive to everyone you have to opress someone else.  So just make room for both.

 

 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)