FOS just got needier?

[Moliere]

Think this through for a moment Douger. Do you really think the drive to "recognize the legitimacy of homosexuality" stops with gay troop leaders, or gay marriage? It doesn't, if given free reign, any religion that doesn't modify its doctrine and practice to eradicate any association between homosexuality and "sin" will likely lose its tax exempt status, be labeled as an organization that promotes "institutional discrimination", and driven into obscurity through whatever legal or other means available. The idea of freedom of religion and recognizing the "legitimacy of homosexuality" are incompatible concepts 100% of the time, so we might as well just draw the line here with the BSA.

The KKK still exists today. I wonder if the BSA will end up like them eventually. Anyone know if the KKK is tax exempt?

[wuapinmon]

Blitzkrieg = Zubaz

[Moliere]

Moliere, you are making my point for me by comparing Boy Scouts of America and religion everywhere to the KKK.

I didn't compare the two.

[Moliere]

Yeah, I'm sure I'm way off in the direction this is headed:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deacons...-gay-weddings/

Pretty soon a government employee will come to your house and force you to have sex with a man. Isn't that how Soddom fell?

[ERCougar]

http://cougaruteforum.com/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=64136

Lol.

[ERCougar]

I just listened to last weeks This American life podcast that did a bit on this gay Mormon reflecting back on some of the dumb stuff he did before he came out (including arranging to meet a crush of his in Peru while his crush was serving his mission there). He used to actively protest against gay rights groups (his example was a local BGLSA chapter that was trying to organize) before he came out, in a sincere effort to help others not 'give in'. I imagine that when one pours so much energy into smothering homosexual tendencies, it's probably hard to muster up much sympathy to the Anne Henches (sic) of the world who just surrender.

[wuapinmon]

Will that man have been tested to ensure he was born with the gay gene? I don't want anyone thinking we weren't born that way when this coupling happens.

There was a time when I moved in you
And the Holy Dove was moving too
And every breath we drew was
Hallelujah

[cowboy]

You're making this entirely too personal.

I'm not sure what good it does to call me a prick and an asshole, to accuse me of close-mindedness, or of having an overinflated sense of my own intelligence. But hey, knock yourself out.

Name calling and personal attacks are tacky, so I only stoop to that level when I mean it. Rather than address my opinions with any semblance of respect, you chose arrogant and condescending. I think you have the dubious distinction of being the second person I've called an asshole on this board. At least you didn't send me a whiny PM insisting I "man up and apologize."

I haven't and won't stoop to calling you names in return.

Really? You won't accuse me of disguising my 'real' concerns and being a bigoted redneck who is so ignorant as to worry that my kids are going to catch the gay from a gay leader? Great, I'm glad you're taking the high road.

I stand by my assertion. This argument isn't really about protecting kids. Everyone wants to protect kids.

It's about recognizing the legitimacy of homosexuality.

I know plenty of people who don't want to recognize homosexuality as legitimate. I respect their opinions, especially when they ground them in religion or custom instead of junk science or overgeneralizations.

No, it's not about recognizing the legitimacy of homosexuality. I understand that you want it to be, and that would place me neatly in the stereotype that you have created for me, but that's not my concern at all. Still, by golly I sure do appreciate you respecting my not wanting to recognize homosexuality as legitimate since my opinion is based on my quaint religious beliefs and customs. If you stand by your assertions, then I guess I stand by mine.

I do see your point-of-view, and I am sensitive to the worries about having homosexual males supervise teenage males in an isolated and intimate environment. However, I think these potential situations are only superficially different from the situations our young people face all the time with regards to coaches, teachers, church-leaders, and other persons of authority. With adequate safeguards and vigilance, I hope we can keep our children safe from predators regardless of sexual orientation.

We would have gotten along much better if you would have led with this in the first place. There is no doubt that pedophiles pose by far the greatest predatory risk to our young people, and the BSA certainly has an idiotic reason for disallowing homosexuals from participating at any level, but that is immaterial because my argument was that even if the BSA changed its rules to allow non-pedophile gay leaders, there would be issues to consider.

My point was simple: If male leaders have different rules than female leaders when working with young women, it seems that gay leaders should have different rules than straight leaders when working with young men who may be gay. Further, dismissing this concern with the tired "you just think all homosexuals are pedophiles response" doesn't do it justice. We often put young adult men in leadership positions because they relate well with young men. If those leaders are gay, and some young men are as well, then the stage is set for an inappropriate relationship - not predatory necessarily, but certainly inappropriate, and something that we should take precautions to avoid.

It seems that you and Lebowski believe the current structure in place to protect against pedophiles will prevent these types of inappropriate relationships. I honestly don't know enough about scouts yet to have an opinion. I'll admit I'm not yet convinced, but I also concede that JL knows way more about scouting than I.

[wuapinmon]

Here's something in a similar vein:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227562/Colleen-Francis-Outrage-transgendered-woman-permitted-use-college-womens-locker-room-exposing-himself.html

A transgendered man permitted to use the women's locker rooms at a Washington college has created uproar among parents who say their children have been repeatedly exposed by him.

At the center of the controversy, Colleen Francis, a 45-year-old student at Olympia's Evergreen College who identifies as a woman but with male genitalia, says she has a right to use the facilities and the school agrees.
'The college cannot discriminate based on the basis of gender identity,' Evergreen Spokesman Jason Wettstein told KOMO. 'Gender identity is one of the protected things in discrimination law in this state.'

Exposed: Colleen Francis, who identifies herself as a woman but with male genitalia, has outraged some parents who say their children have seen her expose herself in a school's locker room. Taking their own action, however, parents of children who use the facility - sharing the pool's locker room with a high school swim club and children’s swim academy – have turned to the police. '[A mother] reported her daughter was upset because she observed a person at the women's locker room naked and displaying male genitalia,' a police report filed by a 17-year-old's mother in September read.

[cowboy]

You're making this entirely too personal.

One more thing, and then I'm done. We all say things we shouldn't, and I guess this thread it was my turn. Despite what I interpreted as snark and condescension on your part, my reaction was uncalled for and far too personal. I stand firmly in my position that I'm neither a homophobe, nor am I disguising my concerns in an attempt to deny homosexuals legitimacy, but I was wrong to react the way I did. I apologize for the name calling and the personal attacks.

[Solon]

One more thing, and then I'm done. We all say things we shouldn't, and I guess this thread it was my turn. Despite what I interpreted as snark and condescension on your part, my reaction was uncalled for and far too personal. I stand firmly in my position that I'm neither a homophobe, nor am I disguising my concerns in an attempt to deny homosexuals legitimacy, but I was wrong to react the way I did. I apologize for the name calling and the personal attacks.

cowboy, I really did intend my last post as an olive-branch of sorts.

I value the chance to learn about your point-of-view. You are a well-liked and well-respected poster around here, and a rebuke from you bears some real consideration. I apologize for the abrasive tone of my previous posts.

I don't come here to make enemies, especially with a guy like you.

[wuapinmon]

Alright, now that the flower of CUF have made peace, please let us weeds get back to making mildly homosexual advances at Blitzkrieg.

[wuapinmon]

And I to welcoming them. Especially from handsome 400 pounders.

Now I know who you are.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I just deleted a series of posts here that were associated with a threat made by a former poster. I don't want to see this thread hijacked (heaven knows it has already been hijacked enough) with a discussion of the threat and the resulting ban. If you want to discuss that, please go here:

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showthread.php?t=8060

[smokymountainrain]

Jeff, I know you greatly value my opinion, so here goes:

cowboy and solon have been particularly mean in this thread. I think they each need a warning of some sort. It tends to be par of the course for cowboy, but totally out of character for a kind hearted guy like Solon. On second thought, I'd probably just give cowboy 2-3 day suspension and let it slide this time for solon.

You're welcome.