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

(minimum 6 characters)

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 (41-50):
JTROX
by Gold Member on May. 27, 2013 at 1:22 PM

We separate straight boys and girls for sleeping arrangements.

Auoting jaxTheMomm:

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.




Carpy
by Ruby Member on May. 27, 2013 at 1:26 PM
Where does the hypocrisy of the the boys end and the hypocrisy of the auther of this article, begin? The line is blurred.
Linus77
by Member on May. 27, 2013 at 1:29 PM
1 mom liked this

EXACTLY!  But straight kids kept with their sex aren't going to get freaky.  Put gay kids in the mix...well...it's easy to manipulate, trick, and wear down someone you're after.  People do it ALL the time...talk someone into doing something they really don't want to...take advantage of them...happens at parties with teens all the time.  So now there's overnight camps in small tents. 

14-17 year olds aren't men.  Nine year old girls get pregnant...so that young of an age is sexually active.  It's not just about putting gay men in charge of young boys...it's about gay boys in with straight boys.  It's a disaster waiting to happen.  HOW is the Boy Scouts going to prevent sexual activities from taking place?  How are they going to prevent pedophiles from signing up if they run around crying discrimination for being gay? 

Look, we have a girl being charged for having sex with a female minor.  People are crying that it's discrimination for being gay...when it's really about statutory rape.  Both sides are up in arms...and the point is...a crime was committed.  This is what will happen in the Boy Scouts.  Will it be statutory rape or gay discrimination?  lines will get blurred, and kids will get hurt.  What measures are the Boys Scouts going to take to prevent these types of situations? 


Quoting jaxTheMomm:

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.





Ziva65
by Gold Member on May. 27, 2013 at 1:38 PM

No group for people like me, I don't fit in the categories above...

I never saw them as a Christian group in the first place.So for them to exclude any groups always seemed odd to me. It's not a church which would fall back on it's doctrine, etc.  If it were a church / conservative Christian organization in the first place, then I'd understand the rules- just like saying only males can be priests, etc.

As for it now being a godless organization, I'd propose it never had anything to do with God.

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on May. 27, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Are you saying that Atheist don't exist? That LGBT people don't exist?

They exist. And if someone chooses to discriminate against them based on bigotry/intolerance it does have an impact on them.

I am sorry you cannot grasp the major distinction between choosing to believe/do something that doesn't impact anyone else and choosing to to believe/do something that discriminates against people based on bigotry and discrimination.

You believe it is okay to show intolerance bigotry to others and discriminate against them. I don't.

I have no problem admiting I have no tolerance for intolerance.


Quoting JTROX:

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.




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

Carpy
by Ruby Member on May. 27, 2013 at 1:39 PM
Slavery is illegal. Having a private organization that excludes gays or atheists is not.

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.









JTROX
by Gold Member on May. 27, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Wow, where did I suggest those people didn't exist? Lol.

I support people's freedoms, you do not.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

Are you saying that Atheist don't exist? That LGBT people don't exist?

They exist. And if someone chooses to discriminate against them based on bigotry/intolerance it does have an impact on them.

I am sorry you cannot grasp the major distinction between choosing to believe/do something that doesn't impact anyone else and choosing to to believe/do something that discriminates against people based on bigotry and discrimination.

You believe it is okay to show intolerance bigotry to others and discriminate against them. I don't.

I have no problem admiting I have no tolerance for intolerance.


Quoting JTROX:

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.





brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on May. 27, 2013 at 1:41 PM
1 mom liked this

Your point? At one point Slavery was legal. It only became illegal after people fought for it.

And I was not arguing that it should be illegal for a private organization to exclude people. Just that if a private organization is practicing bigotry and intolerance peopel should point it out and stop funding/supporting it if they are against bigotry and intolerance.

Quoting Carpy:

Slavery is illegal. Having a private organization that excludes gays or atheists is not.

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.

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

dlkht
by Member on May. 27, 2013 at 1:42 PM
1 mom liked this

 Im a christian, I dont demand to be included in secular clubs and make them change their views to suit my own.  But they sure do it the other way around.  Why is that?

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on May. 27, 2013 at 1:43 PM


When you said you believe everyone should have rights. Because based on peoples intolerance and bigotry atheist and people from the LGBT don't have all the rights that others have.

So either they don't exist or you are not being consistent.

I support freedom, you do not. You support the freedom for bigotry and intolerance. Which is often not freedom at all.

Quoting JTROX:

Wow, where did I suggest those people didn't exist? Lol.

I support people's freedoms, you do not.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

Are you saying that Atheist don't exist? That LGBT people don't exist?

They exist. And if someone chooses to discriminate against them based on bigotry/intolerance it does have an impact on them.

I am sorry you cannot grasp the major distinction between choosing to believe/do something that doesn't impact anyone else and choosing to to believe/do something that discriminates against people based on bigotry and discrimination.

You believe it is okay to show intolerance bigotry to others and discriminate against them. I don't.

I have no problem admiting I have no tolerance for intolerance.

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

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)



Featured