Hey they attacked the boyscouts!!!
There is nothing wrong with the boyscouts.

Pick your battles carefully, cause that one does not help your cause!!

Fanta,

I don't think that having an accepting attitude towards gay PDA is necessary to be tolerate of gays - some people hate seeing PDA, period.

I was simply suggesting you question yourself (which you are clearly willing to do).

Talk of reprogramming is extreme.

Do you feel defensive, due to the opinion of some (not me) that the simple fact of your disgust is morally wrong?

No!

referring to "brand me a homophobe"

No, they will anyway. Dont they always!!!

Leave the boyscouts out of it and Ill support them.

I'm not against the boy scouts, just for the generalization of homosexuals to monsters.
I pulled my son out of the boy scouts because there were drinking issues, and he was only 10 at that time.

sorry "against the generalization"

Ooops... that was Fanta's last post - had not read Invisibles post on drinking issues.

Thats ok andrea.

In America, like I said earlier, all the scout troops Ive ever seen were supported by a local church.

All denmonations, and the leadership came through the church. Parents of boys in the church and others outside the church!

Generally they are choosen responsibly and monitered carefully.
Its not often you hear of abuse to the boys, but occasionally there is a bad seed in everything!!

Well, thank you so much, the word church says it all.

The church says, MOTHERS.
If left to men there wouldnt be much church!!!

Mothers tend to oversee childrens involvement in an organization and esp if its sponsered by the church!

ok I'll try to respond to some here even though they are very spread out. I've collected some quotes from kid and Massage to respond to.

Kid
If this was a school teacher (public or private) would it still be the same arguement Phil? Don't schools have outdoor ed. classes and field trips?

answer, usually 11 year olds do not go on overnight field trips with school. Yes it is the same argument.

question. Where do you get the idea that children are at any greater risk of ANYTHING by being around gay people?

well, straight guys are not going to try to have sex with my son. That should be obvious.

question. Do you think that homosexuality might rub off on them?

Kid, that is exactly what gays are trying to do have physical contact with other boys. So whether it rubs off on them is not the issue. The issue is whether it rubs on them at all.

Kids comment, I'm trying to understand you line of thinking here but I'm having a REALLY tough time doing so.

You are not trying to understand at all. You are being critical without regard for my opinion. Otherwise your capacity for understanding is severely limited, which I doubt so I'll chalk it up to intolerance on your part.

Kid's comment. Molestation, pedophilia, rape and things of this nature have nothing to do with being gay!DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS PHIL? A simple yes or no answer will do, thank you.

Answer, understand hell, I completely disagree. Gays are more likely to start something with boys while straights are more likely to go after girls, in my opinion. Seems obvious to me. It seems to me that your adamant insistence on your position with this is rather illogical. Even if not illogical, its woefully negligent in its disregard for the potential trouble.

comment by Kid. If one were to take the bible and toss it out the window and look at this from a human angle would that change anything?

response. I don't have such archaic values that I rely on the Bible for answers to life's questions of morality. My opinions are based on a more widespread collection of ideas and opinions. In the case of this topic it is largely opinion of course and people are welcome to disagree.




Kid, maybe you'll like my answers to Massage better.

Massage.

question. If (if! hypothetical!) the structure of scouting combined with the inclusion of homosexuals would put young boys at some kind of risk, then maybe the structure of scouting should be reconsider? Separation by ages, degree of supervision, etc. ?

Boy scout age ranges are from boys of age 11 to young men of age 17. At 17 boy scouts consider them to be young men. From a sexual perspective a 17 year old is certainly a young man when compared with an 11 year old. When a boy, at 11 years old enters boy scouts there are boys of all ranges in the group. The older boys are more advanced and the younger boys look up to them and learn from them.

A boy 17 years old in this position if he were gay would be in an unsupervised position of authority of young boys. So a question comes up in my mind, how do you keep the 17 year olds with their greater sex drive and more well developed sexual interests from becoming interested in the younger boys who are entrusted to their care? Even if it would not fall into the classic definition of rape, there would still be the opportunity and the motive for something to happen. An 11 year old boy, or for that matter a 12 or 13 year old, is not in a position to know what to do in such circumstances. Certainly he would not be able to defend himself in case of an assault.

question. maybe the structure of scouting should be reconsider? Separation by ages, degree of supervision, etc. ?

answer, well, that is exactly what the boy scouts are trying to do. In this thread any hate this simple protection offered to children, it seems. Odd in my opinion.

question. Hell, maybe its time to make scouting itself co-ed - so many males get special recognition in our society for making 'eagle' - women have no chance for that


Boy scouts is an organization built for boys. While I don't like to exclude girls from anything, they have girl scouts and they have a lot of the same activities in place. Boys and girls have a lot of differences. Maybe they might run as fast and build a campfire as well and all that stuff, but surely it would change the nature of the group from a boys group to a coed group. I don't have an argument here in favor of leaving out girls. I think it would complicate things on the sexual issue, and like you suggested before regarding gays, certainly there would have to be some separation and in this case chaperoning. As a young boy scout I probably would have spent an enormous amount of time trying to become really close with the girls if they had been there. (Another issue regarding gays in boy scouts).

Massage's comment - special recognition in our society for making 'eagle' - women have no chance for that.

Women certainly get special recognition for being in girl scouts. I see it on resumes and it always gives me just a little extra respect, not that they were girl scouts exactly, but that they were members of a conscientious group of girls who did things to improve themselves and contribute to those around them, and that they had high values in the case of important matters. Like boy scouts, and other similar organizations, such activities reflect better on a person than just staying home and not contributing and participating in productive social organizations.

Final question. f (if!) careless encouragement of gays in an all male spend-the-night-paired-in-tents-away-from-home organization placed boys at risk, which is better:

a) Carefully examining the actual risk factors and addressing them, protecting against malicious -individuals-, or

b) categorically excluding a set of people...

answer. Its a tough call, but think of it like this. When you have a young child who wants to be a scout and you have to choose to let him join or not, if you know that you will be sending your kid off with gay supervisors maybe up to 6 years older than he, are you not a little leery about the matter? I would suggest that many parents would simply not let their kids join the group at all. So by admitting a small number of gays, the organization may be spoiled for many others.

Now is it reasonable to deny so many children, those with protective parents, the right to be in a safe environment where they can learn and develop, or is it better to restrict access to the ones likely to create such problems in the first place?

I would not be pleased to see the organization become so tolerant as to jeopardize the wholesome nature of the organization. I think the boy scouts would go down in infamy if parents held their kids out because of concern for the sexual protection of their children.

I'm surprised to see Fanta in agreement with me on this one, cheers adversary. Ordinarily we disagree on everything. Boy Scouts is an important institution, let's not make it a sexual playground where we send our kids to throw them in the sexual lake and see if they sink or swim.

And what does that change on the doctrines of churches?

Philosopher,
I nearly peed my pants

well, straight guys are not going to try to have sex with my son. That should be obvious.

most paedophiles having sex with young boys are married or divorced. They don't have to be homosexual, just paedophiles.
Ever looked it up in the dictionary?
I think not.

Come here philosopher and give me a kiss!!!


<-------Homophobic!!!!

Fanta, I think I have to remove you from my friends list.

Come-on baby,,lighten up!!!

@ Fanta