FitnessFanatic your resorting to non-sequator. The fact that some elements of Christianity are screwy has nothing to do with the fact that the scouts are a private organization and can allow or not reject whoever they want for membership.

The guy gave a link to 79 different studies, I'm sure a just few of them were possibly conducted by non-religious organizations. I'm not a Christian and yet I find homosexuality unpleasant.

Also to address devilsmom, what does the current year have to do with anything? I didn't know that through the ebb and flow of time acts, without changing, become more or less justified. Yes the way people perceive these acts changes, but just because it's currently hip and trendy to be gay and just because it's unfashionable to oppose homosexuality, none of this changes the act itself.

Speaking to adj4u, if the scouts voluntarily gave the go ahead on allowing gay members and a kid got violated, I belive it would be the scouts fault (viewing this both legally and personally). The opposite would be true if the scouts were forced into accepting gays.

typo:

that should read "allow or reject" not "allow or not reject"

Is there a way to edit previous posts?

Caolina14 why don't and a couple of your buddies out fishing in the woods by yourselves, you know away from women. That's sounds a little gay.


Oh by the way you misplace your screen name, it's should be Carolina14 you bigot. Please try to appear intelligent in spelling your state of birth.

Caolina14 writes:

"While I'm at it, drop the term homophobe. A phobia is an irrational fear. Most people I know who don't approve of homosexuality aren't scared of gays and their disaproval, right or wrong, is often grounded in some rationality. "

Sorry, self-professed dumbasses (he owns it in his profile, don't shoot me I'm only the messenger:) who can't spell aren't allowed to veto the dictionary. Look it up-- the dictionary won't bite you-- like _xenophobia_, it mentions 'hatred' as part of the definition. And by your use of epithets, it's not too hard to guess where you fall.

BTW, you're also wrong about phobias. It's more about aversions and autonomic reactions to stimulae.

-Kerry O.

The name? It's a typo dude, chill. You forgot to insert the word 'go' in your first sentence. Oh and I misspelled my screen name, I didn't misplace it. Big deal, I personally think it‘s kind-of chicken-**** for someone to get their panties worked up over something like that. You’re really grabbing for stuff to criticize when you have to resort to spelling errors, typos, and base-less insinuations.

Bottom line: why don't you try and find fault in my arguments rather than, rather lamely, trying to deflect attention away from such by making personal attacks upon me. Can you?

Kerry O:

I have a sense of humor and can poke fun at myself for simple mistakes, so what? At least I'm not a prick.

Here we go with the Dictonary definition:

phobia
A noun
1 phobia, phobic disorder, phobic neurosis

an anxiety disorder characterized by extreme and irrational fear of simple things or social situations; "phobic disorder is a general term for all phobias"

Who was it that's wrong about phobias?

Oh I don't think I ever tried to hide my opinion of homosexuals (you act as if your letting a big cat out of the bag). I know this would be standard in your Orwellian dream-world, but I’ve still got the 1st amendment to fall back on. Freedom of speech is a *****, ain't it?

Caolina..


I haven't made up my mind if you are or are not a 'prick'..

Define 'prick'..

My definition of a 'prick' is a person who is bigoted, arrogant and obnoxious..

Shoe fit??

Lizard Wrote:
“”the whole concept of the boyscouts seems a little gay to me any way
think about the uniforms, the badges, the tents the merit
little queer to me anyway””

I just cracked up when I read that. Actually, I know far more lesbians who would have loved to have been a boy scout. I was one, I got kicked out Brownies (the predecessor to girl scouts). I so envied the boys and their uniforms and badges and tents and all the competition and survival stuff. The Girl Scouts learned about cooking, and crafts, what fun is that?

Caolina wrote:
“”The scouts are a private club and as such they should have the right to set their own standards and values, and of course decide who and who souldn't be allowed to join. If homosexuality is considered by the scouts to be immoral, why would a bunch of fags want to join in the first place?””

You are correct, they are a private club and should be treated as such. But the status they’ve gained in the sight of the public, set them up for a whole lot of freebies, including a lot of free advertising as some very high government officials, over the years, have held them up to the lime light. For that reason they have been many breaks by city, local, and state governments.

Another issue with the scouts , is they hide behind the good works they do, and rarely does the public see or hear of their discriminatory policies. Some years ago it became a big issue, and some chapters attempted to change their policies. But the governing body of the club refused to allow it.

So it’s about time, they stand on their own feet. Let them raise their own money and pay their own way, without the benefit of our tax dollars. It’s also about time they put their policies in the forefront of their activities too. If a club, especially a club for kids, is going to have discriminatory policies, than they should be willing to express those policies openly.

Okay Spider – Did you REALLY read that link you gave??? I really do try to give you credit for some intelligence, but your lack of reason in these issues gives me cause to reconsider.

The site begins, by taking a stand against homosexuality, then begins to give a bunch of BS information.

“”An essay on adult sex offenders in the book Sexual Offending Against Children reported:”” >>So, it's an essay Spider<<

“”Kee MacFarlane, et al., writing in Sexual Abuse of Young Children: Evaluation and Treatment report:"The large majority of sexual perpetrators appear to be males”” >>Dah - how old is this report?<<<

“”A report by the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children states: "In both clinical and non-clinical samples, the vast majority of offenders are male."” >>Is this news to anyone?<<<

“” A study of 457 male sex offenders against children in Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy found that "approximately one-third of these sexual offenders directed their sexual activity against males."” >>OK we got that<< Then this happens

Homosexuals Comprise Less than 3 Percent of the Population

National Survey of Men (a nationally representative sample comprised of 3,321 men aged twenty to thirty-nine

>>>>NOTICE HOW OUT OF THE BLUE THIS WEIRD STATEMENT SUDDENLY APPEARS, between a bunch of information about male sex offenders. WITH NOTHING TO SUSTANTIATE IT. Does the idea of SUBLIMINAL MESSAGES come to mind????? But the article continues as it nothing strange as been written.<<<<

“”In a survey of studies on homosexuals in different populations, the Archives of Sexual Behavior reported a random sample of Hawaii State residents interviewed by telephone””

>>>>>ok, I’M interested now a real survey of, a random telephone interview, in Hawaii. Yea – now we can get statistics… WTF????<<<

“”The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2 to 4 percent of men attracted to adults prefer men (ACSF Investigators, 1992; Billy et al.,1993; Fay et al.,1989; Johnson et al.,1992); in contrast, around 25 to 40 percent of men attracted to children prefer boys (Blanchard et al.,1999; Gebhard et al.,1965; Mohr et al.,1964). Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6 to 20 times higher among pedophiles."[18]””

>>>>Ok, the year is 2007 Spider , I personally know at least 25 lesbians who are not OUT. Why the hell would they give this information in any kind of survey??? 2007 AND THEY’RE STILL HIDING Sure, take examples of (small studies, not even scientifically produced, on very small portions of the populations; studies from 1964, and 1989, and 1992. And YOU GIVE THEM CREEDANCE? SHAME ON YOU!
Now look at what that above quote is even saying
“only 2 to 4 percent of men attracted to adults prefer men” SO…....then this –
“ in contrast, around 25 to 40 percent of men attracted to children prefer boys” >>WTF ARE YOU READING,SPIDER?<<

WHAT THE “H” could an intelligent human being get out of that link you provided. Oh there is a lot of reference in that article, and a lot of places to research them, and the few I looked at, have been MIS-represented in this article.

SPIDER – YOU ARE HOMOPHOBIC, I have no doubt – don’t even attempt to refute that. But continue to refer to such GARBAGE and I will continue to show others the crap you are believing in. At least faith has a benign side – this kind of crap is a cancer.

Caolina14 writes:

" have a sense of humor and can poke fun at myself for simple mistakes, so what? At least I'm not a prick."

Nono, more of a phallic narcissist I think. Not to worry, we're here as your safety net should we notice your straying into that "prick" territory. Just another free service we offer all the Bubbas who join us to play at gay bashing.

"Here we go with the Dictonary definition:

phobia
A noun
1 phobia, phobic disorder, phobic neurosis

an anxiety disorder characterized by extreme and irrational fear of simple things or social situations; "phobic disorder is a general term for all phobias"

Who was it that's wrong about phobias?"

Well, you're closer this time, but remember context is your friend. Besides, whom better to describe them than someone who's beaten one?


"Oh I don't think I ever tried to hide my opinion of homosexuals (you act as if your letting a big cat out of the bag). I know this would be standard in your Orwellian dream-world, but I’ve still got the 1st amendment to fall back on. Freedom of speech is a *****, ain't it? "

Yes, you do have a wide latitude in which to be as boorish as you wish. But only to a point. See those astericks? That's the sound of your free speech hitting the wall. The real trick, though, is to keep the mark in the game.

And yes. I admit it... I'm a....




...progressive Libertarian Humanist with an IQ in the 98th percentile. :) Boo!


-Kerry O.

Hey - KerryO, Have I told you recently, how nice to see your 'mensa' mind quoting, word smything, art displayed in these forums? I think I'm still your biggest fan.

your not supposed to brag about your IQ.... YOU HAVE SOMEONE ELSE DO IT. LOL

KerryO: You disagree with me for disliking people because of their lifestyle choice. You deride me for the region in which I live (a Bubba is it?). I'm not complaining, I'm just wondering if no one else sees the irony in this.

It's all about the context? Explain to me what it was that I took out of context. I stated that most people that I know of who don't like homosexuals, do not fear them and their dislike is not irrational. A phobia again is "an anxiety disorder characterized by extreme and irrational fear of simple things or social situations". Maybe it's me, but "irrational" and "fear" seem vital to the context.

You identify as a libertarian. Shouldn't you respect the scouts right as a private club to exclude membership to whomever they wish? I mean, isn't libertarianism about letting everybody do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm others?

You also describe yourself as progressive. How so? Explain to me how glorification of non-reproductive same-sex intercourse counts as societal progression. Oh wait, it did help spread AIDS. That was a big step ahead for humanity.

Your in the 98th percentile eh? Isn't shouting about it a bit narcissist, if sans phallus? I've never had my IQ tested, but I doubt I'm in the top 2% of human intelligence. I'll take your word for it. Just blows my faith in the IQ system of intelligence rating.



Redy wrote:

" You are correct, they are a private club and should be treated as such. But the status they’ve gained in the sight of the public, set them up for a whole lot of freebies, including a lot of free advertising as some very high government officials, over the years, have held them up to the lime light. For that reason they have been many breaks by city, local, and state governments. "

At least you argue the issue rather than my character, or possible lack-of. If government officials, or whoever, hold give them free publicity that's their choice. Individual government officials have the right to do so. Just as individual government officials have the right to support any other club or organization (million-mom march, etc.). They may get breaks, but only because of the high-regard they have earned among the community. Let homosexuals start their own version of scouts and they will have all the opportunity in the world to make a name for themselves. Today's society as a whole is very accepting of homosexuals.

Bibby: Here goes with the definition of a bigot (drum roll) “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion”. You seem to fit that bill as well as I do. My perceived arrogance or obnoxiousness is pretty subjective.

Carolina writes:
"They may get breaks, but only because of the high-regard they have earned among the community. Let homosexuals start their own version of scouts and they will have all the opportunity in the world to make a name for themselves. Today's society as a whole is very accepting of homosexuals."

What they have earned in the community has not be fairly won. If their policy is to prohibit any faction of society in their club, They should be forthright with the communities in which they function and display with consistancy their views. I don't belive you would find too many government officials openly supportting such a club, at least, not if their sights are set on Washington.

Your solution "Let homosexuals start their own version of scouts", reinforces segregation. We've come a long way in the last 70 or so years, away from segregation and into a more diverse light.

There is a great faction in society who would argue that the GLBT community are cruesading for separate rights and demanding special privilege. This is not true, and if any of our "community" were to attempt such a segregationist idea, it would only serve to reinforce the idea that we are in some way deserving of such speical treatment. We are not, we are, however, entitled to the same rights and privlige that is granted to every heterosexual.

I'm not opposed to the club having an exclusionary policy, I am opposed to any of my tas dollars support such a club.

Yall should chill on the boy scouts really.

They gained the spotlight from the deeds and accomplishments of former and current members. The government officals jump on their bandwagon for this fact!

The accomplishments of these young men can be attributed to character, honesty, reverance and civic duties. Qualities instilled in them by the organizations that sponser them. Generally the community and the church. All deneminations, Catholic, Protestant, Jehova, Jewish, Morman,etc. etc..

The only reason they were singled out is because of one groups agenda to make a loud enough noise that everyone else would notice them! looking for a target with the very same prominence in the community that make it great!

The losers in these actions have been the young men and communities who lose their qualities!!

Caolina writes:

" KerryO: You disagree with me for disliking people because of their lifestyle choice. You deride me for the region in which I live (a Bubba is it?). I'm not complaining, I'm just wondering if no one else sees the irony in this."

No, the Fans of Irony here are looking at your coming in here throwing the term 'fag' around like you just won it in the Powerball lottery. And the more literate of the assembly are probably thinking about the line from Shakespeare "Methinks the lady doth protest too much."

"It's all about the context? Explain to me what it was that I took out of context. I stated that most people that I know of who don't like homosexuals, do not fear them and their dislike is not irrational. A phobia again is "an anxiety disorder characterized by extreme and irrational fear of simple things or social situations". Maybe it's me, but "irrational" and "fear" seem vital to the context."

One more time: _hatred_ is the operative term in the definition and, not incidentally, the context in which this little skull session is based. All the rest are just textiles to clothe the Emperor in Moral Superiority, even as his arse is still in plain sight.

"You identify as a libertarian. Shouldn't you respect the scouts right as a private club to exclude membership to whomever they wish? I mean, isn't libertarianism about letting everybody do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm others?"

Only that private club is trying to feed at the public trough while not respecting its rules-- rules designed to reverse decades of institutionalized sexism and prejudice. Hasn't it been shown that everyone benefits from a more harmonious society where the majority is estopped from running roughshod over the rights of minorities to live and breathe in a social sense?



"
You also describe yourself as progressive. How so? Explain to me how glorification of non-reproductive same-sex intercourse counts as societal progression. Oh wait, it did help spread AIDS. That was a big step ahead for humanity."

Given that, in a terrible truth of nature, innocent babies are born with AIDS as the result of exclusively heterosexual contact, your premise fails. Utterly. Besides, people like yourself hating gay men can be shown to pre-date the AIDS epidemic.

But you might want to talk about glorifying non-reproductive sex with Rambill-- he's our resident oral sexpert.


"Your in the 98th percentile eh? Isn't shouting about it a bit narcissist, if sans phallus? I've never had my IQ tested, but I doubt I'm in the top 2% of human intelligence. I'll take your word for it. Just blows my faith in the IQ system of intelligence rating."

Perhaps, but not nearly as priceless as appropriating the last name of two states for one's nom de plume. AND THEN MISSPELLING IT!! (BTW, that's 'you're', NOT 'YOUR'. Sheesh!)

Oh, and could you spit those seeds from those sour grapes somewhere else?

-Kerry O.

Scouts are not a 'Christian' Organization hence the name World Scouting.
Member Countries by Region

World Scouting is composed of 6 regions- Africa, Arab, Asia-Pacific, Eurasia, Europe & Interamerica. Each region has its own World Scout Bureau Regional Office. Find out which member country belongs to which region...

Member countries listed by Region.
Africa Region


Angola
Benin
Botswana
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Chad
Comoros
The Democratic Republic of
The Congo
Côte d’Ivoire
Ethiopia
Gabon


Gambia
Ghana
Guinea
Kenya
Lesotho
Liberia
Madagascar
Malawi
Mauritius
Mozambique
Namibia
Niger


Nigeria
Rwanda
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
South Africa
Swaziland
United Republic of Tanzania
Togo
Uganda
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Arab Region


Algeria
Bahrain
Egypt
Jordan
Kuwait
Lebanon
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Mauritania
Morocco


Oman
Palestinian Authority
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Sudan
Tunisia
United Arab Emirates
Yemen

Asia-Pacific Region


Australia
Bangladesh
Bhutan
Brunei Darussalam
Scouts of China
Fiji
Hong Kong
India
Indonesia
Japan
Kiribati
Republic of Korea


Malaysia
Maldives
Mongolia
Nepal
New Zealand
Pakistan
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Singapore
Sri Lanka
Thailand

Eurasia Region


Armenia
Azerbaijan
Georgia


Republic of Moldova
Russian Federation
Tajikistan

Europe Region


Albania
Austria
Belgium
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece


Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
The former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia
Malta
Monaco
Netherlands


Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
San Marino
Serbia and Montenegro
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
Interamerica Region


Argentina
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Bolivia
Brazil
Canada
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Dominica


Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Grenada
Guatemala
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico
Nicaragua


Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines
Suriname
Trinidad and Tobago
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela


Religion in Life Badge covers all major religions. You have to show a knowledge of YOUR religion and its practices.

The odds of getting a Leader who is a pedophile are slim. Police background checks are done on Leaders.

Wow!!!

Spider wins again!!!

This topic has made bastardly and confused puppies!!!

Congratulations 'spider'! You are unbeatable in the art of delusion. A flawless modern day 'Don Quichotte'!

I especially thought the infamous “79” links to be a most powerful lure!
The sheer number, sure gives one the impression of stunning the crowd!

... If you can't inspired them with reason, intelligence and wisdom, … just stun and baffle them with twisted logic and grandiose 'BS'...

Again 'spider', I bow to you! You are a master ‘illusionist’. How you turn racism, bigotry, hate-mongering, prejudice, discrimination against fellow humans, and plain ignorance...
... INTO TRAVESTIZED VIRTUE, never ceases to amaze me.

And thanks to you, you are now attracting some of your ‘truth twisting’, and more promising sophistry pupils,
… like that 'caolina14': SHE’S ONLY 14!!! Wow!!!
Some might say that's a bit on the young side, but she sure writes on bigotry, confusion of 'genres', and ignorance of facts with such conviction, she sure could be an asset for that new religion of yours 'spider' !!!

Anyhow, while it might be too late to bring this thread back on topic, here’s my humble attempt to do so.

‘fitness’ contributed an article which essentially deals with the first amendment of the constitution of your country. More importantly, it opposes the 'establishment clause' and the 'free exercise' clauses of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

The ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE prohibits Congress from making any laws seeking 1) the establishment of a national religion, and 2) the preference of one religion over another.

The FREE EXERCISE of religion is a guarantee by a government for freedom of belief for individuals and freedom of worship for individuals and groups. It is generally recognized to also include the freedom not to follow, or not believe in any religion.

The Establishment Clause deals with the pubic domain, while the Free Exercise Clause deals with the private domain.

In the specific case brought forth by ‘fitness’,
… the City of Philadelphia, a municipal government of the USA, is enforcing the Establishment Clause of the first amendment of the US Constitution, and…
.., the Supreme court has rule in favor of the BS of America (that’s for Boy Scouts), to discriminate, based on the ‘private’ freedom of religion clause.

So all appears to be well at first sight.
On the one hand, the public space breaks all association, or favor, with the ‘BS of A’ based on potential violation of the Establishment Clause, and in respect of individual freedoms clause: no discrimination based on sexual orientation.
On the other hand, ‘exclusions’ based on religious dogma, and supported by freedom of exercise in the private domain, saves freedom of religious practice.

The only disturbing issue in this whole situation, and even if it is limited to the private domain, is this hypocritical and veiled support of discrimination against human beings in the US, when one believes in a fuzzy logic fictitious book which, and interprets it in whatever manner serves his lowest instincts.

Let’s stop arguing with the lunatics, and let’s discuss the incoherencies of the First Amendment.

I say first and foremost, no discrimination against other human beings period, in the private just as much as the public domain. Then and only then, it would make sense to allow freedom to believe and practice, or not believe and not practice a particular religion, in a private context only.

The intent of the first amendment is division of state and church.
This division allows for the public space to be free of religious discrimination and oppression, while not forbidding those whom chose ‘oppression’, to practice it in a private context.

That IMO is the whole point (and continuous mission) of a society that seeks to elevate ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ to the top of their sacred values (sure hasn’t made it yet!!!).

Anything short of debating with all our energy to relegate religious fundamentalism and oppression to the private basement of our ‘free’ societies,
… leads us back to the numbing and conscienceless ‘spider’ favored ‘Obsessive-Compulsive-Delusional’ twisted and confused ‘evil’ like world.

Beware the ‘spider’ ‘gas’, it will numb you!!!

(Nothing personnal ‘spider’:
by the way ‘spider’ I am attacking the ‘one-track’ obsessive Christian Fundamentalism BS you seem to be make one with. It is IMO a perversion of Christian values, and given that it hides behind Christian virtues, it is not only DISHONEST, it is downright DANGEROUS!!! It gives false legitimacy to bigotry, hate-mongering, prejudices of the lowest nature, discrimination of other human beings, and elevates ignorance to be confused with a new noble virtue.

I for one denounce the repetitive, redundant and perverse positions you spew on all the threads you visit.

An invitiation: you might consider bringing some intelligent nuances to your convictions and supporting discourse. )


OK!!! Can we get this thing back on topic?!?!?

So gay scouts = pedophile nightmare?...leave it to our society to
toss out worse case slogans to instill fear....and of course as a
society we ignore real nightmares

http://informeddissent.com/2007/06/28/the-franklin-cover-up-bush-pedophile-ring/

the scout controversy is small potatoes people

As I remember the scouts, the organization was about helping boys to learn to have new skills and to develop self confidence and encourage resourcefulness. This seems to me to have nothing to do with sex.

There are no girls in Boy scouts, so it would be difficult for heterosexual issues to distract the boys from the core materials, such as hiking, camping, knot tying, archery, astronomy, fishing, campfire cooking, and such. At the age of 11 to 13 sex is not quite prevalent enough that girls, who are not even in the organization, could distract from the core features of scouting.

Now when you toss someone gay into the mix, even giving him the right to hang in the organization until he is 17, while the new scouts who presumably would be looking up to the older scout, may be only 11 or 12 years old, the topic around the campfire turns from hunting to what the person sitting next to them has in their pants.

As a young scout around a campfire, I don't thing that would have been something I would want to deal with. I just don't see how one person in the mix trying first one then another then another boy, trying to start something sexual, until finally succeeding, is going to be productive.

If you have 20 boys on a camp out, their parents are not in the tents with them. Parents do not want to think that when they send their boys to a camp like that, other boys will be trying to seduce them in their sleeping bags.

If a girl were to sneak into the camp and try to have sex with the boys, all the parents would object on the grounds that the organization was not about sex, but about the other core values I mentioned earlier.

If they won't let the girls in to seduce the boys, why should they let a boy in to seduce them?

I see this as a group trying to pervert the scouts as an organization, from a camping, hiking, canoeing organization, to a place where boys sit around and diddle one another. I wouldn't want gays to have equal access to my son, particularly in an unsupervised camping situation.

What is homophobic about being a responsible parent? What is homophobic about an organization trying to be responsible to those parents?