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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (130568)	8/8/2005 6:24:53 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793758

I just think that making a hard and fast rule, "no gays," is unfair. They have a tough enough time with the problem without opening up to gay scoutmasters. I know that parents would never go along with it. The ACLU has made a crusade out of this issue, and it's really hurting them. You will see Congress pass a law allowing scouts to do as they please because of it.

To: Ilaine who wrote (130568)	8/8/2005 8:50:19 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793758

I think that the better argument against the Boy Scouts is their religious discrimination.

To: Ilaine who wrote (130568)	8/8/2005 9:33:41 AM
From: aladin	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793758

CB, but not all gay men are interested in little boys. Similarly, not all heterosexual men are interested in little girls. We'd be foolish to say it doesn't happen, but I just think that making a hard and fast rule, "no gays," is unfair. This is a stupid idiotic argument and you should know it - you have teenage sons. But maybe you don't because you have never mentioned daughters. Ok - it works with Cub Scouts, but we are discussing Boy Scouts which is ages 11 to 18. Notice the range. No one would seriously argue that heterosexual males could or should manage teenage girls aged 14-18 alone in back country, so please explain to me why homosexual males are so much more chaste? Already because of numerous cases of this the BSA has adopted stringent 2 deep policies to try to prevent abuse, but it happens. The case in question involved a single gay male aged 22. How is it that he would have no interest in boys only 4 and 5 years younger than him? Homosexual politics is very PC - so everyone concentrates on the 11 year old child and decries being accused of pedophilia. What about the 17 year old? How would you manage this process? How would you prevent multiple gays from entering Troops (to defeat the 2 deep rule)? When you say this is ridiculous - Packs on the West Coast now do police background checks because it has happened. Having said that my Troop had a better rule - parent and grandparent only leaders. I am sure the ACLU would find a problem with that as well. John

To: Ilaine who wrote (130568)	8/8/2005 11:53:39 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 793758

Suggesting that it is immoral (morally indefensible) to believe masturbation is immoral is simply dumb. What kind of mental defect says it is immoral(morally indefensible) to say masturbation is not morally straight. I do find all the confused minds who cannot see the obviously simple as quite amusing. Connecting the dots for the dim bulbs. homosexual conduct is by definition masturbation. There are not two sides to the story. There are only the simple meanings and definitions of words.

To: Ilaine who wrote (130568)	8/8/2005 4:34:29 PM
From: Bridge Player	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793758

but I just think that making a hard and fast rule, "no gays," is unfair. I could be right, and I could be wrong, but that's beside the point. And who is to judge? One of the problems with our society is that the state tries to become the judge and make laws accordingly. Quite clearly, what is "fair" or "unfair" is always going to be in the mind of each individual. And all the laws they might pass or court judgements they may render are not going to change that.