Actually, that wasn’t the argument at all, as anyone even remotely familiar with the facts of the case would know. I guess that explains why you don’t.
Great. Now find me the portion of the Scout handbook or Scout oath that says it’s against the rules to be gay. I’ll be patient, in case you have trouble.
So then if I were to say that a sweeping law against something related to black people (another minority)[sub]Oh shit . . . are we getting into another kettle of fish here?[/sub] was bigoted, that means that I’m assuming everyone desires to allow black people to be accepted in this particular action that they are not allowed to partake in now? Bullshit. All it means is that I think so.
I’ll reiterate pldennison’s request to see this rule. I was unaware that any organization receiving funding from the government was allowed to discriminate based on a fact of someone’s existence (as sexuality is).*
Is that what makes it a private organization?
Which inherently suggests that it is bad. Bad=undesirable. And that suggests that homosexuality is bad.
How do you learn to be gay?
Shit . . . I don’t know whether or not I actually want to see your answer to this. But hell, in the name of fighting ignorance, please answer the question:)
So how’d they break the rules? What specific rule, which you will please cite in the BSA handbook (and provide a link, if such exists), are they breaking?
*By this I mean that my bisexuality, as pldennison’s heterosexuality and Hastur’s homosexuality, is a fact of my existence. I.e., I exist; part of that existence is my bisexuality.
It’s extracted from the phrase “morally straight” and “clean”. In my copy of the Boy Scout Handbook (which is no longer the current edition, and also is in very bad shape), “morally straight” is defined as
“Clean” is defined as:
As far as I know, those are the only items that are claimed to be evidence of the Boy Scouts’ belief that homosexuals cannot make good role models.
For further reading: Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale
I think I’ll defend somef MC’s statements. And clarify some other points.
Under federal law, I don’t believe that homosexuals are a protected group. The law doesn’t follow common sense positions about whether it is a fact of someone’s existence or not.
All it really suggests is that many people consider homosexuality bad. Which, sadly, is true.
Again, MC is merely saying that certain opinions are held by people. That those people’s opinions are stupid is irrelevant.
This seems to be part of the problem here. MC states that others are bigotted, and everyone jumps on him for being bigotted himself. Personally, I think he is merely accepting of other people’s homophobia, which isn’t a good thing, but not quite enough to satisfy myself that he’s a bigot.
I’ll quote from Scouting For All’s FAQ:
Just so no one has to spend all night looking for that which doesn’t exist.
Oh, sure, I don’t make the list. I never make lists 
Great. Good to know that my friend Rav’s kids, who are all five of them children of a homosexual, could be tossed out of BSA if it became known that their father (who has now been divorced from their mother for a few years—long story) is gay.
Unless by this the BSA means children where both parents are gay . . . in which case you’re still punishing (by them being thrown out of BSA) kids because of their parents’ existence.
Yuck.
waterj2, what is your sexuality?
[sub]And how YOU doin’?;)[/sub]
Wow
I now know what it is like to argue with a wall.
“Wow I now know what it is like to argue with a wall.”
I think you are being taken to task primarily for bigotted comments about gays in general, not anyone in this thread.
The reason it is compared to talking with a wall is that you seem to be holding views contrary to what has been shown to be correct here, with respect to homosexuals and pedophilia.
I suppose it’s possible, but there does not seem to be any policy (even an unstated one) on children of homosexuals, and this was probably something done by a particularly homophobic council. Also, depending on state law, he could have a case for reinstatement, as even if you accept the conclusions of the Dale case, I don’t see how this could be covered under expressive association.
Uh, let’s just say “questioning”.
Quite well, thank you. How YOU doin’?
Welcome to the club.
You don’t have to try to be bigots, guys. You’re there already.
What takes work is overcoming those ingrained, irrational responses. It can be a tough job, overcoming deep-seated cultural bias, but it’s worth it; you may discover that some people you might have dismissed out of hand before, are actually interesting, decent human beings.
So there you have it; I don’t want my son to spend a week in the woods with a gay troop leader, and thus I’m a bigot. I predicted this would happen.
Some political commentators have said (often half jokingly) that if you have the courage to verbalize any politically incorrect belief in this age, you’re instantly labeled a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot. Guess this proves it.
Yawn.
Too bad Alphagene already beat you to the punch on this one over here:
Sometimes it’s almost creepy these mods can see into the future…
Ah, but the truth hurts, Schief2. Indeed, if you say any un-PC belief in this age, you are instantly labeled a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot. This has been proven over, and over, and over and …
Read it again:
**There are many, many conservative-oriented posters on this board. And I’d be willing to guess that at least a few of them might also describe their opinions “un-PC”. Yet you’ll notice two things:
Nobody’s falling all over themselves to declare them bigots.
Despite the presence of a good number of “un-PC” folks such as yourself on these boards, in nearly five pages of posts no one, and I repeat NO ONE, has rallied to your side of the debate other than you and MC…not conservatives, not liberals, not purple-spotted polka pants wearers. Nobody.
I wonder that might be. I can give you a hint if you need one.
Crafter_Man, if you have bigoted opinions, and you cling to them in the face of evidence to the contrary, people will call you a bigot.
They’re not doing it to be politically correct. They’re doing it because you’re a bigot.
I’ve taken the liberty of reviewing your participation in this thread. It’s been obvious from the start that you have an opinion that is unassailable by facts, and that you are proud of your inability to change. You’ve professed amusement at the barrage of facts presented to you. You’ve posted cites from a biased source, which presented excerpts and interpretations of research that were manipulated to provide the most sensationalistic soundbytes possible. Then you’ve prevaricated over where you got the cites to start with.
You’ve claimed that the members of the SDMB only attack un-PC opinions, and have been proven wrong with direct evidence. You’ve ignored the report, presented to you by a top researcher in the field, that stated directly that “men who are homosexual in their adult orientation are in fact less likely to molest children than are heterosexuals”.
You obviously have a prejudice that is set in stone, and nothing is going to change that. When you find out someone is homosexual, you will instantly consider them to be a child molestor.
No-one is asking you to leave your children unsupervised with a stranger. I expect that, as a parent, you will always make sure that your kids will have adequate supervision by multiple adults in any setting where they are in any kind of risk; it’s part of the responsibilities of parenthood. What we’re asking you to realize is that you’ve condemned an entire group of people of a heinous crime, without ever having met them. You have pre-judged gays to be child molestors, based on bias and selective misinformation that fits into your tight little world view.
So yes. Your refusal to believe that your son may be perfectly safe with a gay troop leader is bigotry.
If you want to get past your prejudiced outlook, try judging gays by the same criteria that you judge everyone else by.
“Crafter_Man, if you have bigoted opinions, and you cling to them in the face of evidence to the contrary, people will call you a bigot.”
And so you’ll make the point anyway, but preface it by saying, “If I was silly…”
How much contrary evidence does one need to present before proving an opinion is wrong?
Well, let’s see. RickJay did some damned fine detective work in bringing us that email from a respected researcher in the field that showed that your average gay guy is not a threat to your kids.
In “Journey Into Darkness”, former FBI profiler John Douglas talks a bit about the NCMEC (National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children) and how they classify child molestors.
He goes on to talk about Lanning dividing situational child molesters into four categories: repressed (low self-esteem, has sex with children as a substitute for the adults they can’t approach, will molest their own children because they are most available); morally indiscrimate (likely to be abusive in all areas of life ie will also abuse wife and friends - bolding mine - has no qualms about stealing what he wants; sexually indiscriminate (abuses children because he is bored and the experience seems new, exciting and different, may also participate in activities like group sex, bondage and spouse-swapping with consenting adults); and inadequate(the social outsider).
Which is all a long way of saying this recognised expert in criminal profiling, and his colleagues Lanning and Dietz, consider many other factors far more important that sexuality when considering who may be a child molestor.
Then, this from the North Carolina Wesleyan College website: “There is an 11:1 ratio of heterosexual pedophiles to homosexual ones.” That’s from Dr Tom O’Connor, assistant prof of Justice Studies. I’ll repeat it to make sure you got it: “There is an 11:1 ratio of heterosexual to pedophiles to homosexual ones.”
You really need to learn how to write in understandable English if you’re going to contribute to this thread. That sounds like one of Chrissy’s lines from Three’s Company ferchrissakes.
But to respond to what I think your comment is: Bigotry is bigotry. The definition has been posted here a few times. Go back and look it up and you’ll see why Webster’s is considering putting your picture next to that entry.
~
Ok, you’re rattlesnake analogy is just as stupid as your McDonald’s coffee lawsuit analogy was.
A rattlesnake is a reptile. A homosexual is a homo sapien.
Biting is a natural instinct in rattlesnakes. Child molestation is NOT a natural instinct in homosexuals, or even homo sapiens in general for that matter.
So tell you what, Crocodile Hunter, let’s leave the diamondbacks out of it and stick to the subject at hand.
Incidentally, is using the form:
[quote]Text that you are quoting[/quote]
really all that damn hard to figure out?
Well, that would be silly, yes. You see, bigots judge entire groups of people, not by their actions, but by a set of preconceptions that are based on indirect, and quite possibly false, sets of information.
What I did in the course of my post above, is judge you by your actions, as an individual. That may make me judgemental, but it hardly makes me a bigot. To do that, I’d have to make absurd extrapolations about a general class of people based on limited and probably erroneous information.
Like, for instance, if I was to say “All posters whose user names begin with a C and involve an underscore character are big spineless stupid weenies.” But, you see, I judge people as individuals, so I’d never do that. Someone named, say “Cthulhu_Guy” might come along and prove to be intelligent, open-minded, brave, and capable of rational thought.
So instead, I just judge you, based on the actions that I’ve observed in this thread. And you’re a bigot.