Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (204176)	11/20/2001 4:10:03 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

"Yes....what other reason could there be?" You are such a hypocrote JF. How do you justify criticizing the entire organiztion and its members (per your paramilitary comment) and yet feel that people who would rather their kids had a homosexual free boyscout experience are homophobes? I think it is reasonable for people to have the view that they would rather not have homosexuals being the scout leaders. You won't like this, but if they don't tell everyone what their sexual preference is it would be a non issue.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (204176)	11/20/2001 4:27:12 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

res- Yes....what other reason could there be? First of all, "homophobia" is one of those ugly cant words like racist and sexist, that has no real meaning except toward extreme radical fringe elements. Therefore, I find your calling people on this thread who agree with the Boy Scouts "homophobic" to be extremely narrow minded, simplistic and just plain rude. The word as used today is a verbal badge of PC groupthink. And nothing more... It's also funny how the people who style themselves as victims always want to bully everyone else by tossing that word around instead of discussing the actual issue involved. The Supreme Court has upheld that the boy scouts have a right to limit their membership as they see fit. Some people who support the boy scouts ban of homosexual scout leaders do so for that reason alone. They don't want the courts, or PC thinkers, to infringe on the rights of private organizations to set moral codes of behavior. Another reason is safety. Which has already been eloquently stated here in a previous post. A gay man has a higher propensity to find a young boy sexually desirable than a straight man. And he may act on that desire. Parents have every right in the world to limit the environment around which their children may become sexually preyed upon. Studies have been conducted which support this parental fear. If you randomly selected 100 gay men, and 100 straight men. Statistics show gay men are more prone to pedifilia toward boys then straight men. But, most people don't need a study to tell them what their common sense already knows. Scouting sometimes demands close quarters and intimate settings. Parents want their children in a safe environment when they are alone in the woods, on outings, or with an adult. Most parents wouldn't want their daughter's girl scout pack leader to be a man, so they have rules which prevent men from being girl scout leaders and thus alone with their children. Why shouldn't parents have the same trepidation regarding a gay man with their sons? You may call the studies wrong, biased, or anything you like. And you may call the parents wrong if you like. But it's anything but homophobic Having said all this, it in no way implies most gay men are pedifilia's. The same way not allowing men to become girl scout leaders doesn't imply most men are pedifilia's. Parents run the boy scouts. And they have a right to set up safety and behavioral rules they deem appropriate. If you aren't involved in scouting and think the scouts are some kind of paramilitary group, why do you care anyway? I could care less what rules some Arkansas militia group has toward their membership. Since you've equated the two, I find your desires to change the Boy Scouts PC group motivated and nothing more.