Do Boy Scouts and Liberals Mix?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:how can a "child" possibly be an athiest or agnostic? he doesn't know enough to make his own decisions - that is just brainwashing by the parents.

Haha! I would say the same thing about organized religion - how can you possibly believe in god when you are just being indoctrinated by your parents/church?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of you are equally intolerant. Have you ever thought that the way to change something is to participate and try to change within. Also, Boy Scouts is a great organization for boys of single parents and boys who would never know anything about the outdoors. Stop being so sanctimonious with your close mindedness.

Yes, because sending a check to a discriminatory organization is the best way to show you disagree. I've sent thousands of dollars to those Landover Baptist idiots already. Boycotts are for pansies!

Why do you think that sanctimonious yelling by an outsider is going to have any effect at all?

The only people who can change the rules are the Boy Scouts themselves. So have you ever thought that you could effect more change by working from within, that is if an organization is worth saving and has something to offer you? Get on the board. Work with other like-minded parents.

At a minimum, STFU when other people are trying to work for change from within.

[Anonymous]

Shame is a better motivation to change than co-opting your values. Shame on the boy scouts, and shame on those who turn a blind eye to their intolerance.

When the boy scouts finally abandon their institutionalized bigotry -- which they will, within 20 or 30 years -- it will be a black mark in their history that they didn't do it sooner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of you are equally intolerant. Have you ever thought that the way to change something is to participate and try to change within. Also, Boy Scouts is a great organization for boys of single parents and boys who would never know anything about the outdoors. Stop being so sanctimonious with your close mindedness.

Yes, because sending a check to a discriminatory organization is the best way to show you disagree. I've sent thousands of dollars to those Landover Baptist idiots already. Boycotts are for pansies!

Why do you think that sanctimonious yelling by an outsider is going to have any effect at all?

The only people who can change the rules are the Boy Scouts themselves. So have you ever thought that you could effect more change by working from within, that is if an organization is worth saving and has something to offer you? Get on the board. Work with other like-minded parents.

At a minimum, STFU when other people are trying to work for change from within.

I'm encouraging others not to join. Without members, they'll either fail or change their tune. Until then, I'll encourage others to boycott.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Shame is a better motivation to change than co-opting your values. Shame on the boy scouts, and shame on those who turn a blind eye to their intolerance.

When the boy scouts finally abandon their institutionalized bigotry -- which they will, within 20 or 30 years -- it will be a black mark in their history that they didn't do it sooner.

I disagree completely that "shame" is a better motivator. If anything, it makes the other side dig in. If I had somebody as nasty as you in my face, I'd probably dig in too. (And just for the record, I think the policy on homosexuals needs to change.) When your kid wants to eat the Fruit Loops instead of the oatmeal, do you shame him?

Here's a question for you: do you do anything at all, besides withhold your money and rant on DCUM? Do you think the Boy Scouts leadership is reading DCUM? Or do you just have anger issues?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Shame is a better motivation to change than co-opting your values. Shame on the boy scouts, and shame on those who turn a blind eye to their intolerance.

When the boy scouts finally abandon their institutionalized bigotry -- which they will, within 20 or 30 years -- it will be a black mark in their history that they didn't do it sooner.

will be interesting to see how this unfolds over time. I personally think homosexual rights are at a highpoint now, and the fad/trend will fade in the coming decades. Advances in science will play a part, as we understand more about what it means to be "gay". & comparing gay rights to civil rights, in my opinion, is very offensive. but hey, we shall see. I'm on the sidelines and will just observe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm encouraging others not to join. Without members, they'll either fail or change their tune. Until then, I'll encourage others to boycott.

Just here on DCUM? Ah ha ha ha! Do you think your nasty style helps you persuade people, or turns them off?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey PP, even the gay man with a son in the troop wouldn't be allowed.

But more importantly, what makes you think that pedophiles cannot be married and identify as straight? There was a pedophile in my neighborhood when I was a kid who was all the kids' best friend. He had a wife and two toddler daughters. He would take groups of kids to the pool or other outings. And he wound up convicted of multiple counts of child molestation.

I was suspicious of him from the start but any parent who relied on his being married to a woman and having two kids was making a mistake.

Here's a Boy scout perve who people let off the hook now married:
http://www.postregister.com/scouts_honor/part5.php

The cover-up and LDS VIP members after the reporter:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/expose/expose_2007/episode215/essay.html

Zuckerman's partner is/was the mayor of Portland [Adams].

Yes-boy Scouts is creepy and a normal guy who just happened to be gay reported the story.

nothing in those links changes my mind that gay scoutmasters is a bad idea.

Well that is your option but the fact is a gay reporter outed the pedophile and the super family group [LDS] slammed him. best scenarios for scout leaders? gay men for girls and gay women for boys. That is unacceptable to you? i had kids in scouts and would not have if i had known how weird it is - my kids thought it was weird after about age 9. They are not sheep.

[Anonymous]

how about dads for scoutmasters and moms for girl scout leaders? crazy idea, huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Just here on DCUM? Ah ha ha ha! Do you think your nasty style helps you persuade people, or turns them off?

Obviously, shooting her mouth off on DCUM has changed a lot of minds. The liberal posters are still liberal, and the conservative posters are still conservative. Wonder if the Boy Scout leadership reads DCUM?

[Anonymous]

PP accusing people of being nasty and having anger issues, I think you're projecting a bit. Sidelines PP, it's as offensive to call gay rights a "fad" as it would be to call the civil rights movement a fad. How horrible it would be if discrimination were something that tended to go in and out of style.

As Martin Luther King Jr. said, the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice. Once people see the fundamental injustice of bigotry, they don't go back.

[Anonymous]

will be interesting to see how this unfolds over time. I personally think homosexual rights are at a highpoint now, and the fad/trend will fade in the coming decades. Advances in science will play a part, as we understand more about what it means to be "gay". & comparing gay rights to civil rights, in my opinion, is very offensive. but hey, we shall see. I'm on the sidelines and will just observe.

Replace the word gay with the N-word, and you have a slave owner from the Revolutionary War. IMO, this post was very offensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

will be interesting to see how this unfolds over time. I personally think homosexual rights are at a highpoint now, and the fad/trend will fade in the coming decades. Advances in science will play a part, as we understand more about what it means to be "gay". & comparing gay rights to civil rights, in my opinion, is very offensive. but hey, we shall see. I'm on the sidelines and will just observe.

Replace the word gay with the N-word, and you have a slave owner from the Revolutionary War. IMO, this post was very offensive.

sorry to offend. my point is that I do not equate sexual orientation with race or gender. Not yet. maybe science will prove me wrong. I tend to think we are all part gay, part straight, and whether or not we act on it is based on the current society. Some cultures are ok with it, some are not.

[Anonymous]

PP, Dan Savage has a good answer to people who think being gay or straight is a choice. "Prove it: Suck my d***." (or lick my p**** if you're a girl.)

Maybe you're truly bi and would be able to just choose to do one or the other, but most of us cannot make the other choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, Dan Savage has a good answer to people who think being gay or straight is a choice. "Prove it: Suck my d***." (or lick my p**** if you're a girl.)

Maybe you're truly bi and would be able to just choose to do one or the other, but most of us cannot make the other choice.

I disagree. If it feels good, do it. Reason we do not is because society tells us it is bad. so many women experiment with other women now-a-days, and I doubt there has been a huge increase in bi-sexuals or gay women - just more socially acceptable.