We live in a country with a legal system based on the preponderance of evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt before a man is convicted of a crime. We cherish this, rightly so. We are innocent until proven guilty. This too is a fundamental truth. We conservatives insist on factual knowledge, on experience, on logic, reason, and a fundamental truth to things. Liberals, as we all well know, live in a sort of amorphous dreams and wisps of imaginary problems, buttressed by the flimsiest logic known to mankind. Socialism, communism, progressives, liberals, social justice … oh, they use so many terms it’s hard to keep track; you know of whom I speak.
But, then, beyond all this stuff about economics and foreign policy and patriotism and entitlements and the debt and deficit and the budget, or, non-existent budget, and the current politics of our times … there’s the gay thing. The homosexual issue. Oh, I contend we are so very different that it requires an appeal to something beyond mere math, such as might be contended with a budget. The gay thing simply stands apart from every other political problem facing the nation. And so, as the gay guy who is quite conservative in every sense of the word you might imagine on any issue before the public – immigration, bank bailouts, dealing with Europe, the Fed, the IRS, the DHS – hell, all the D’s (how appropriate, so bad that they only get D’s, eh?) and well, I’d make Barry Goldwater proud – I will try to explain the dilemma.
I make my father proud too. He was a Goldwater Republican. Still is, I guess. He’s gone Reagan. Oh well, no one is perfect. But it was Goldwater who said, in 1994: “You don’t have to like it, but gay Americans deserve full constitutional right including military service and marriage.”
That’s what Mr. Conservative said while Mr. Third Way Liberal Clinton with his pants down was signing into law DADT and DOMA. Irony, yes? Yes, then there’s the gay thing. Well, my father and I have a great relationship, and he and I wrote a book together.
His life as he wanted to tell it, and my two cents. Well, that’s the “gays are anti-family” bit, yes? Isn’t that is what is said? Yes, “homosexuals are anti-family.” So be it. Maybe homosexuals are. But, alas, to reality, gay men are not. My own father doesn’t think so, I assure you.
Indeed, in my appeal, I posit this simple notion – I’m as opposed to “homosexuality” as the opponents of gay guys are. That is, this construct called “homosexuality” and its “lobby” “agenda” and “pro-gay liberals” is a myth, it’s a thing that doesn’t exist. And yes, I’m against it. But then, well, then there are us gay guys. And we don’t fit the “homosexual” mold. That’s the problem. That’s my appeal to the jury of my peers. The evidence against us is not real, and the facts are for us. We are, I hope, at least deserving of a reasonable doubt.
Let me start off with the sex. Yes. Most of you find the sex abhorrent. OK, fine. I’ll accept that. Let us then stipulate that minimally 95% of the male population is not gay. That leaves 5%, at most. Is this the real number? We don’t know. Out of all the things counted and quantified, studied and examined, the real numbers of gay men is not on the list. No one knows. Every study must, of course, reference Kinsey’s 10%. It’s a number long discredited, no one believes it, and yet, it must be referenced. Pro-or-con. This I agree, some gays use it, some heteros do. Then, there’s the 11 – count them – 11 studies by phone that were done over the decades. Gary Gates, of UCLA Williams Center – and a gay demographer, the gay websites helpfully tell me – concludes there are exactly, I kid you not: 2,491,034 gay men in America. This is the supposed latest number. Except the Gallop poll of just a few weeks ago which says that the “number” of “LGBT” [who would admit] on the phone was 3.5% – they did not break it down as to which were L, G, B, T nor provide an absolute number.
Some people use 1%, others 1.4, 1.5, 2, 2.3, 2.6, 2.9, 4, 6 – Here’s but one “study” of the number. Here’s a mind shocker – most heterosexuals think 25% of the population is gay and just 6.5% are gay according to Roberto Lopez at American Thinker conservative blog a month ago no source was given. Here’s yet another strange estimate
So, indeed, no one has a blessed clue as to how many of us there are. Once you face that, then you can conclude that any other study which purports to show that this number of gay guys are or are not doing this or that is utter bunkum. But you know, liberals are the bunkum artists, and conservatives deal with facts. So, the fact is, no one knows how many gays there are, on earth.
It is supposed that this is an American issue. That Obama is for gay marriage, and good Republicans–are–not. Except, gays – known as ‘gays’ in the local lingo worldwide, and English word run amok – are in every country on earth. Did you want to go to the Gay Pride event in Minsk, Belarus? Well, it’s there for those with the desire. How about Japan? Osaka, Tokyo, Kyoto – more, Sapporo – oh my. And Helsinki in Finland and Cape Town, Durbin and Johannesburg, South Africa, to Santiago, Chile and Buenes Aires, and Caracas, Rio, Sao Paalo, Bogata, Mexico City, Casablanca, Rome, Tel Aviv, Ankara, New Delhi – Teheran – gay people have the audacity for liberty to hold a gay pride march in Tehran! I suppose they’re attacking Allah instead of Jesus. What is that about the toughness of Tea Party conservatives with a 2nd Amendment under some rhetorical attack? Compare: gay guys got up in Teheran and said “the hell with this.” Oh, innocents.
In India there are the Untouchables. 150,000,000 souls considered, well, untouchable. The Brahmin doctors in the public hospitals for free health care refused to treat the Untouchables. And where are gays in the caste system of India? Beneath the Untouchables! Oh yes, that’s how despised we are. And what happens in Hyderabad, Bangalore, Mumbai, Calcutta, and lesser places? Gay pride marches. And you folks think this is an American issue? You think this is remotely related to any public policy issue the USA faces? Really?
If gay folks, the vast consortium of LGBTQ (I know, it’s confounding, I’m sorry, I’m not in charge) amount to a mere 5% or less of the population we are a mere 350,000,000 people out of 7 billion. Do you really all think we chose this to fight you all incessantly in every country on earth because Obama decided to come out for gay marriage? Or, that it’s not natural in some way? We appeal to your reason, and you switch to emotion. I can’t fight you on that – you know what you know, and believe what you believe, so be it. We are the pariahs of mankind, of that there is no doubt. But, well, here we are. We say we’re born gay, many of you demur, and essentially call us liars and then say it either happened to us, or we chose it, or a confab of both.
Let us face the reality too that there is, among heterosexuals, a clear division in the LGBT rainbow. Lesbians are not so bad. Oh, face it, Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt have made millions off of displays of lesbianism. As a 20 year old I did color proofing for High Society magazine, please. Bisexuals are, well, lapsed heterosexuals, and they have wives and girlfriends, and a dash of intervention and all will be well. Transgendered are, strangely, heterosexuals.
Yes, let me explain that by pointing to the two most historically prominent transgendered people we can reference: Christine Jorgensen and Chaz Bono. Christine was a guy who became a girl who then found a guy and as a gal and guy have been happily married for decades. So, gal and guy – that’s heterosexual, yes? Now, Chastity Bono was a gal, who because a guy, who then went out and found a gal – so, guy and gal together. Last I looked, and correct me if I’m wrong, when guy and gal are together in holy matrimony or at least socially acceptable shacking up that’s heterosexual, yes? Yes. So, I will admit, wholeheartedly, that I am utterly flummoxed why Transgendered people are lumped with gay guys. Gay men are not gender confused, I assure you. Well, so, the three, L, B and T, are shall we say, OK, to some degree. Ah, but then there’s G – the gay guy. We are the butt of the problem (oh, pun intended, we are adults here.)
Yes, the gay man. And what does he do? Well, as the “homosexual” he is hellbent on destroying the nation, civilization, God, marriage, kids and anything else good and wholesome. There is no good in the “homosexual.” Well, the way that guy is described I don’t like him either. Now, then, there’s the gay guy. I can’t speak for us all. Alas, we don’t get a memo from Gay Agenda Central. In fact, almost certainly much to your surprise there is a very vigorous Republican-Liberty versus Democratic-Control debate going on on gay websites. You don’t know that because “homosexuals” might be pushing an agenda to make everyone gay instead of discussing something silly like whether the currency is being inflated out of all reason. No, gay men must perforce have an exact same opinion on say, the tax code, with nary a difference to be found, like among good heteros such as yourself and say Nancy Pelosi. Who you smooch apparently doesn’t affect your IRS meter – but, if you’re a gay guy, well, I guess it must be true that you’re for something else, whatever the gay guy position is on the IRS code is supposed to be. I don’t know it. Do you?
Meanwhile, let us be realistic that there are still American politicians calling for criminalizing gay sex. Yes, Rick Santorum and Allen West and Tony Perkins and many many others have spoken about the need to outlaw gay sex. I suppose that’s to stop heterosexuals from having gay sex. It certainly didn’t stop gay men. Why, that’s why we were arrested in police raids on bars – for liberty. Oh, don’t worry, gay men paid for those raids, with our tax dollars.
We also must face the fact that this ridiculously small percentage are the only gay folks, we’re not trying to make anyone gay, and we know well we can’t, for, well, you’re born gay or you are not. And the vast majority of you are not gay, and never will be. And yet, it seems the fear that if a nice word is said about the few gays folks every heterosexual will run down to the local gay bar to find some sex. It’s strange, this belief, but that has to be it. We “choose” to be gay, so, if something nice is said about it, everyone else will choose to be gay, and then what? Only, well, no one chooses, and no one turns gay. And so the fear or worry is completely unfounded.
Strangely, groups like NARTH, AFTAH, FRC, AFA, NOM – oh, fine groups I’m sure, even if a tad gay obsessed – they are sure that we make up 1% of the population, that we are richer and more well off than everyone else, that we are gay because our father, mother, uncle, man down the block, predisposition and choice made us gay (or any combo) and that we are also demented, sick, ill, childish, absurd, unnatural and worse. And so, people who would seem to be unfit to make a go of life are also just doing stupendously! I’ll let you figure that one out.
Then too, there are the various reasons we are gay. Conservatives, as I know them, wish to know causes and fact, and to drop dogma and wishful thinking – until it comes to gay folks. Then they jump onto the merry go round of why guys are gay with wild abandon. Have you seen the list? It’s incredible. My my, so many reasons, for a tiny bunch, but 1 reason for 95%. It seems gay men have such powerful minds and wills that we are able to turn off instinct and nature itself; science has not seen fit to study the anomaly.
Actually, since gay men are the majority of the 5% LBGT, I’ll say 3% gay men – OK – AFTAH says it’s because our mothers were strong and our fathers absent – OK, so there would be no black teenage pregnancy problem in America today – they’d all be gay for having strong mothers and absent fathers. Not to worry, Ann Coulter and others blame gay guys on the black teen pregnancy problem. I suppose we get them pregnant after our hours and hours of gay sex. I don’t know.
The late Charles Socarides, a doctor, with NARTH, is sure it’s the weak father and cloying mother – only, he has a gay son, a “homosexual lobbyist” even, and well, there’s tension there, yes?
The Family Research Council is sure there’s predisposition and a choice – I suppose we are predisposed to choose. The predisposition is not further explained, except, it’s not genetic or natural. So, somehow, we’re both naturally predisposed and unnaturally predisposed – and we choose to be gay too later on. I don’t know. I’m not in the business of purveying the mush, merely to present it. They also put out an information package pointing out that gay men die at the age of 41. This is news to me as I approach my 55th birthday. It’s their mush, ask them.
The Catholic Cardinal of Chicago, Mr. George, says that his gay nephew is a fine man while homosexuals are intrinsically disordered and evil and destructive to society. I will leave to you all and the Cardinal the division of proportion of how much “fine man” and how much “evil” the nephew might possess. Or, I submit, one or the other proposition – fine or evil – is off the wall. But you can’t be a “fine” and “evil” at the same time, can you?
It is well known that liberals despise the military and avoid serving. It’s not so well known that it was Log Cabin Gay Republicans and serving soldiers who challenged DADT and had won in the lower courts and were going to win higher up when Obama decided to join the bandwagon. He fought the case at first, after he lost he changed his mind. Oh don’t let his evolving and following be confused for leadership. The man hasn’t led on anything ever – now you think he’s at the forefront of gay issues? Egad. We rightly claim he’s a bumbling idiot, and then on the gay thing you think he’s changing America. He’s just another heterosexual who’s “Evolving.” Every heterosexual is evolving on the issue, you can’t get away from the discussion.
Meanwhile, gay men up and joined the military, lied as best they could to do it, at the behest of DADT and heterosexuals in general, and you still hunted them down and chased them away. The nation was in need of linguists – we had 400 linguists in the languages we needed – oh, I’m sorry, they were gay – what could they do to help the nation? – after all – it must be true that these Americans who learned Dari, Pashtun and Urdu were hellbent on destroying America by demanding a shred of decency and the ease of the legal regime of marriage. Or, the homosexual does one thing, and the gay guy another.
Which brings me to marriage. The Supreme Court is considering two cases. Two so far. There’s more in the pipeline. Even if we lose this round there’s plenty more cases, we are determined fellows. In Helen Branson’s mid-1950s book “Gay Bar” attests: gay men were for marriage, and used the word, in the 1950s. This has been a goal since the beginning. Every group, every plea, every court case, every begging has been directed towards a decent recognition of our relationships and our humanity. That’s the gay goal. It’s not political, it’s social. Meanwhile, there is the construct of the homosexual goal of destroying the place. Nothing could be father from the truth. All evidence shows it.
In fact, gay folks have jobs or own businesses. We have to, there are no public programs for us, no. We aren’t the unwed mothers on welfare. We’re not the people getting disability – even though many are quite sure being gay is some disability indeed, we still have to make our own money. So, we do. The National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce claims 1.4 million members. Say ½ are gay – that’s a lot of business folks, yes? I would think that gay folks pay roughly $100 billion in taxes. It’s a guess. And AIDS, always the big gay concern, costs about $2 billion total. And the defense of DOMA by Congress is costing $3 million. And other than that, gay men don’t get any services as gay men, but we sure pay for you folks – we add $98 billion to the pot for unwed mothers and abandoning fathers. We’re a net plus to the nation, obviously.
The clearest evidence that you can see on the difference between “homosexuality” and gay guys? Think about the next time you fly and get a hotel and rent a car and eat out. Look carefully at the young man who is tending your needs. The desk clerk, the waiter, the man who takes your credit card and brings your kid a glass of water – they are gay men. That’s the people you fear – the people who make sure you food is hot, your water is cold, your wine is chilled and your bed is comfy – while you all fly hither and yon denouncing homosexuals gay men are politely helping you do it. And it is this reality versus the myth that I bring to your attention. Why Conservatives go from fact, reason and logic based people on matters of public policy and then switch to pure emotion and religious dogma without a shred of fact, logic or reason on gay folks is something I don’t understand.
I don’t say these things to tell you gay folks are wonderful or that we are innocent of sin, or that you have to like us – but I tell you because you are as against the “homosexual” as I am, but I wish to speak to you as a gay American, who is not the “homosexual” of your thinking, and tell you, we are simply so unimportant, and so different, that the whole “left-right” divide disappears. With gays it’s a whole new territory.
@MataHarley:
You’re responding to what you ‘think’ I said, not what I said. Where and when did I say ‘challenged in court?”
@Redteam #526:
“I don’t think I said anyone broke any laws, did I?”
No, you did not, and I didn’t say that you did. I asked what you were suggesting. SUGGESTING!
Everything in your post is legal.
And you’re right that all laws aren’t perfect. But crying about laws you don’t like changes nothing.
@MataHarley:
You’re sticking to your habit of questioning what you ‘think’ I said, rather than what I said. I don’t know what causes that, but you might try to correct it.
Nothing you’ve said, or I said, has a damn thing to do with believing in the strict interpretation of the constitution. There is nothing in it that gives anyone the right to force their beliefs on others. So, whenever a ‘constitution’ issue comes up, I will remain on the side of the constitutionalists.
You can’t have it both ways, if 10 year olds are ready to be tossed out into the world (your earlier position) then just adding ‘never ends’ to your alleged responsibilities doesn’t mean a damn thing once you’ve thrown her to the wolves. (you’re saying that 10 year olds in organizations have the right to make their own decisions, which is it, do they or don’t they). I contend they don’t get a vote in who can occupy their tent if that choice is the wrong one. It seems as if your position is; your 10 year old son is going camping with his BSA troop and he tells you he is bunking in a tent with a known 18 year old homosexual. You say, that’s great sonny, hope you have fun. Or?
RT, I will apologize and and correct a “lecture” comment about you being a self professed “constitutionalist”. I cannot, however, correct your error or misreading. If you reject a High Court decision as wrong strictly because you disagree, that you remain a constitutionalist by any concept of the word is just a bad joke. Our branch of powers and adjudication structure proves you incorrect.
All of us have SCOTUS opinions we disagree with. That doesn’t change them as settled law. Only that we have to approach them in a different fashion for correction. What is settled law is that the BSA, or any private organization (and that will include a caucus) has the right to create their own rules of membership.
That does NOT, however, make them above any future, if not absurdly dumb, legal challenges. You have no constitutional right to be above legal recourse, however stupid and ill thought.
No where did I say that 10 year olds are “ready” to deal with what comes their way in reality. Some are. Some aren’t. And that wasn’t even my statement.
What my statement was is that even 10 year olds have formed an opinion. And that while parents have the power of influence for life, that doesn’t means such influence is successful. Nor is there much a parent can do to enforce an unwanted viewpoint of life on a 10 year old… unless, of course, you want to get into child abuse and tyrannical parenthood. Even tho that may result in desired behavior out of fear, it is not a sign of psychological acceptance. At some point, you have to let the child learn to make their own mistakes and judgement, and hope that you made a good impression on their moral character. Otherwise, what’s the option? You didn’t say.
As far as whether they get a “vote” as to who can occupy “their tent”. I refer you first to the BSA study and the responses of the 16-18 year olds. You cannot speak for them. As for those younger, which is a harder group to poll for many reasons, the bottom line still comes down to two things… 1: does the kid want to join the BSA, knowing that some others may be homosexual, and 2: will their parents let them join?
Again, none of it is your business, but that of the kids and their parents. You can’t seem to get around this because of your “for the children” style argument.
I think what the BSA study proves is that the kids are far more accepting of homosexual company than their parents are.. and without fear of such company. Woe for you, eh?
But again, we have to go back to one base thought… do you think that the BSA and camping trips are nothing but an organized minor orgy that is unsupervised, and sexual activity is encouraged? Is that your idea of Scout outings?
@Redteam #527:
“The homosexuals that were trying to get in were not BSA delegates either, but they pushed their agenda on a crowd that should have had the right to not be interfered with.”
The people pushing an agenda were not the same people who were trying to get into the BSA.
The BSA did not have “the right to not be interfered with.”
“Should,” as you are using it here, is irrelevant, as the Constitution and the Laws make no provisions for what “should” not happen even though it IS legal.
Your persistence in evoking a “right to not be interfered with” makes absolutely no sense, not constitutionally, not realistically, not legally, not logically. The closest I can get to where you are coming from here is a “right to privacy” that Scalia would deny you anyway. And the “right to privacy” is not the same “privacy” that we have in “private organizations like the BSA,” or a “private in the Army,” or your “private parts.” I’m just saying…
@Redteam #535:
“There is nothing in it (the Constitution) that gives anyone the right to force their beliefs on others.”
So very true. But the external pressure exerted on the BSA did not rise to a definition of “illegal force,” else the BSA would have sued for millions and won. Instead, if you subscribe to retire05’s theory, they caved to save a few pennies per child. More likely they listened to their experts and to their members, as Mata said, and their vote reflected what they heard.
Your obsession with 18-year-old homosexuals bunking with 10-year-old boys is what, a fantasy or yours? The BSA discounted that risk as insignificant. If you are so worried about insignificant risks, wouldn’t you be better off addressing real, serious risks? (If you can’t think of any, I’ll help…)
But you prefer to stoke the flames of homophobia, hoping that your “18-year-old homosexuals bunking with 10-year-old boys” match will set something ablaze. You must be bored.
@Redteam:
I keep hearing from you guys that “life isn’t fair,” that gays should “man up” and stop whining about being discriminated against, being taunted, mocked, insulted, etc. So what if they don’t have blah blah blah.
Why doesn’t this same “life-isn’t-fair” logic apply to the BSA? Why should the BSA get super-constitutional protection against “influence”?
The “influence” exerted on the BSA was free-market pressure and nothing more. The alternative you seem to be looking for is more government interference in free-market processes, and that leads to bigger government. Be careful what you ask for.
Is this a correct analysis?
You disagree that homosexuals should be allowed to challenge the private BSA rules for discrimination (which they haven’t done since SCOTUS 2000, BTW). But you do think you are justified in challenging the private BSA rules for moral objections to speculative sleeping arrangements?
Can you do so within constitutional powers? Hang yeah..blow your wad of cash on the unwinnable, RT. Sue anyone for anything.. it is the American way, ya know. Do feel free.
But don’t suggest that homosexuals aren’t allowed to challenge, and then suggest that you can do so strictly on hypothetical and manufactured grounds of morality. At least the homosexuals, and atheists, had a cogent base argument with active discrimination and/or religion.
You? You’re just floating the idea, hoping the government would step in to mandate speculative morality in your favor, all based on the idea that something *might* happen. And the idea you would want to contest an internal BSA decision is so far from being a “constitutionalist”, you’d need a transporter to come close.
And yet, are you not suggesting doing exactly that? Forcing your beliefs – that being speculative possibilities about kids in tents? Not to mention challenging a private institution’s rights to create their own rules simultaneously.
@MataHarley
What is this obsession you have with High Court and Scotus? When and where have I even mentioned the Supreme Court or any decision they made? I much prefer you to comment on what I say rather than what you ‘imagine I said or think” If you can only imagine that I think opposite you, then you will disagree with everything. Imagine that I think the same, and you won’t have anything to dispute. Oh, I see the problem.
RT, the High Court and SCOTUS are one and the same. The “obsession” is, by the founding of our Constitution.. that thing you say you revere… they are the final answer in specific disputes. Ergo when it comes to what you feel, and what the High Court has ruled upon as within our laws, I… as a constitutionalist… will work with their decision.
Are you sure you aren’t the libertarian here?
@MataHarley: I notice you steered very clear of the questions I asked that you know you don’t have the answer for.
Why don’t you summarize those questions in one response for me, RT. I’ve been multitasking all day, and you’ve had a lot of comments. I’ve honestly tried to catch up as much as possible. And you know very well I don’t “steer clear” of controversy. You must have me mixed up with someone else you know.
Or perhaps more succinctly put, what the hell are you talking about specifically?
RT, before I sign off here, I’ve tried to read thru all your mish mosh, trying to figure out what you think I “can’t answer” or are “steering clear” of.
The only thing I can come up with, in the shortest form, is the below:
Let me summarize this in short, via paraphrased questions and answers:
Is it none of your business what the BSA does?
Correct. It’s none of your business
Is it none of the homosexuals’ or atheists’ business what the BSA does?
Also correct.
Does the phrase “none of your business” mean the same as “rights” or legal options to sue?
Hang no… “none of your business” means you’re a meddling busy body for whatever reasons you choose to be a meddling busy body.
Did the homosexuals challenge the BSA in the courts?
Yes. And SCOTUS? (aka High Court) set them straight. aka settled law.
Did you, Redteam, or are you, Redteam, planning on, challenging the BSA in court because you object to sexual activity in tents, that hasn’t happened?
Haven’t got a clue. Are you so rich to throw that much cash away? But you’re sure doing a lot of babbling about stuff that hasn’t happened, nor that the BSA, the kids, or their parents, are obsessing on. Thinking of preemptive litigation to protect kids that haven’t been abused yet?
Do you, or other complaining parties (like the homosexuals or atheists) have the right to challenge in the courts for any reason, however frivolous and futile?
Of course. Depth of pockets should always be considered in advance, not to mention the merits of the challenge for fiscal prudence. Hint… paying money for legal complaints about events that haven’t come to pass is a waste. If you want to throw money down the drain, go to Vegas and at least have a good time, see a show, in the process.
If you are a self-professed Constitutionalist, would you be interfering, or filing lawsuits, against private clubs about their membership criteria
Nope… no genuine Constitutionalist I knows wants to interfere with their right to set their own guidelines. Not unless, of course, you want to be no different than those you criticize. That’s synonymous with hypocrite, BTW.
If you are a self professed Constitutionalist, do you believe that the High Court opinions are the law of the land and precedents, whether you agree or not?
Yep. Any Constitutionalist I know honors our Constitution and the order of the branches of power and authority, as delineated in that same document…. whether they are happy with the outcome of a specific case or not. They just start anew with a challenge from a different angle within our law. To ignore our founding structure and laws is counter to our Constitution and principles.
Anything else?
If you ever wonder about failures to communicate, just take a gander at the above run on stuff, RT. It’s enough to make the most patient of eyeballs roll to the heavens.
Word to the wise: KISS And unfortunately for Ms tiresome, who’s done the most unappetizing come on already, I’m not referring to her ass.
@MataHarley:
Wow, Mata. You shut them DOWN!
(LOL… They’ll be back.)
It’s a known fact that heterosexual males will take advantage of gay males younger than them forcing them to perform fellatio. Any younger gay make will be seen as nothing more than a mouth to them. They don’t care who they screw because it’s about their power. This is good practice for forcing fellatio on their girlfriends when theybget home. If they are especially effeminate the gay boy can be expected to be forced to wear lipstick and a bra so the straight boy can practice screwing while pretending it’s a real girl. He usually finishes upnbybbeating the living crap out of the faggot for being attractive. A few good shots to the face fixes them right up!! This is the way all straight males act and if you let your gay son go camping with those rutting monsters he will come back abused and damaged.
Offensive? No more than the patent declaration that 18 year old gay scouts are child abusers.
No matter what is said here you will never see gay people as people. I’m beginning to think I should stop seeing straight people as equals and consider them all depraved sex fiends for the horrible things they think about honest hardworking trustworthy kind obedient and morally straight but sexually gay kids who want nothing more than to become men.
Shame on you.
@Ted @548:
Very effective demonstration, Ted, but sadly, one that will never register with bigots.
There are preditors out there of every stripe, not just the flavor of the month.
@George Wells: 538
George, those must be voices in your head. Not once have I said anything even slightly resembling what you just said.
So, you are going to try to persuade someone that all judicial decisions are correct? Do you think that a judge will give a decision that is is permissible for an 18 year old homosexual and a 10 year old to be bunked together on a campout, without correct supervision? If he did, would your emotions overrule his correctness?
There were several others.
Why on earth would a judicial opinion need to be rendered on 18 yr olds and 10 year olds “bunked together on a campout” at all unless there was a crime involved assaulting a minor?
See above… laws protecting minors against sexual crimes. Any BSA counselor, despite sexual orientation, who molested a minor needs to be prosecuted for a crime… just like priests should be prosecuted for the same. Or school teachers that have sex with their minor students. etc etc etc
Am I supposed to believe that you think the BSA voted for consent to some sort of camp out orgy, and child molestation? If you do, then you did not read the links I provided to their study, and the attention they paid to risks INRE child abuse. Truly an absurd leap into the intellectual abyss.
While we’re on that “bunking out” hypothetical, I’d like to interject some reality. In summer camps all over the nation, there are teen counselors bunked out with younger campers. Unless there is a crime committed, what’s your problem?
If there is a sexual assault… or even consensual sexual activities… that is still prosecutable for laws that protect minors from such. Happens quite often in both hetero and homo relationships when there is a relationship between an over 18 and younger boyfriend or girlfriend.
Don’t see any thing else I missed, as most were answered by my Q&A comment above, and you’re just generally rewording the same questions with different language.
@Redteam #550:
OK, RT, here’s the complete context:
“I keep hearing from you guys that “life isn’t fair,” that gays should “man up” and stop whining about being discriminated against, being taunted, mocked, insulted, etc. So what if they don’t have blah blah blah.
Why doesn’t this same “life-isn’t-fair” logic apply to the BSA? Why should the BSA get super-constitutional protection against “influence”?
The “influence” exerted on the BSA was free-market pressure and nothing more. The alternative you seem to be looking for is more government interference in free-market processes, and that leads to bigger government. Be careful what you ask for.”
The first part comes directly from retire05, with whom you rarely disagree. In all fairness, your position HAS been that gays already ARE treated “fairly,” which is more of a fantasy than retire05 is willing to entertain.
The second part refers directly to your question of ”why can’t the BSA be free from external “influence?””
But don’t dodge the legitimate questions I posted by feigning innocence. If you support more protection for gays than retire wants, say so. If you support more government involvement in private affairs, say so.
@MataHarley:
Still avoiding answering questions, eh.@MataHarley:
Kinda funny. Just for the record, I was in the Boy Scouts when I was younger and I know what actually takes place on campouts. That’s why I would never consent to let a 10 year old, boy or girl, bunk in a tent with an 18 year old. Obviously you’ve never been on a Boy Scout campout, so you don’t have first hand knowledge to speak from.
Just heard on the radio that since the Canada Scouts admitted homos that membership is down 63%. They’re having to sell off a lot of property, campgrounds, etc, to stay in business. Soon they’ll be down to a homosexual organization only.
@MataHarley: Interesting, writing your own questions and answers now. You missed more than half the answers. Need another quiz? something you know more about maybe?
Just curious, why do you assume a person has to be rich to take a case to court? You’ve said that several times, so it must be a real hang up. As I’ve told you before, I’ve taken 3 cases to court, Pro Se, won all three and don’t have any money invested in all of them. The loser even paid my air fare to go to court. Maybe you need to get to know someone that knows more about the law that can guide you along.
Redteam, stop being cute. The Q&A was because your more convoluted questions seems to boil down to the obvious. So I made it KISS comprehend able.
If you think there’s an answer you require to your question, please feel free to place them here. And KISS would be appreciated.
Because, within the subject matter posed (i.e. your objection to the morality of homosexual counselors daring to sleep in the same tent as the campers, or the BSA voting to admit gay Scouts), that’s settled law with SCOTUS 2000 as relating specifically to BSA and their admission policies. Since you will be beaten down at every level of the judicial food chain, you’ll need deep pockets to go right back up to SCOTUS, who will merely view any such as case a waste of their time. They felt the exact same with with the birther cases that wouldn’t stop taking advantage of our appellate system, with some justices getting verbally outspoken about frivolity.
And what makes you assume I haven’t been to court, representing myself? I have multiple times, including one battling against a city district attorney. And yes… I prevailed. But I had to go thru three court levels and appeals to get to where I wanted to go. It required my own time and brief writing/precedent research… things that if one isn’t comfortable doing themselves, an attorney will charge them an arm and a leg to do. When you decide to appeal, and if you keep losing, it just compounds the cost. Simple logic.
You really should stop framing situations and morality with yourself as the quintessential representative of all others. Or assuming the air of superiority.
@George Wells:
I can’t dodge the legitimate question because you didn’t ask one. The ones asked are premised on a position you state that I have, that I don’t have and have never said I held. For example these: they are your questions, not mine.
@Redteam #556:
“I can’t dodge the legitimate question because you didn’t ask one.”
???
Was:
“Why should the BSA get super-constitutional protection against “influence”?
not a legitimate question?
It was approximately ten words long, began with an interrogative, had simple sentence construction and ended in a question mark. How hard was it?
Get ready for another legitimate question at the end of this:
In your post #519, you evoked:
“the right for free people to belong to the Boy Scouts without interference from (homosexuals).”
Also, in your post #527 you said:
“they (homosexuals) pushed their agenda on a crowd that should have had the right to not be interfered with by them.”
Then, in your post #539, you said: “Mata is the one singing the mantra about persons in an organization having the right to not be interfered with by those that are not members. That’s not my song and dance, it’s hers.”
If it is not your “mantra,” why are YOU repeating it in YOUR posts #519 and 527??
What is this “right to not be interfered with”?
Is there such a right, or did you misspeak?
Seems as if there is no end to the persons and groups lined up to be the ‘victim of the day’…
@George Wells: @George Wells:
There was nothing contradictory in what I said. She was the one claiming there was a right to not be interfered with, I just said that if that was so, then why didn’t the Boy Scouts have that right.
I explained this to you in comment #545, Redteam. “None of your business” is not the same as a “right”. Everyone has a “right” to bring a lawsuit, no matter how frivolous. However it is still none of your business, or that of the homosexuals, what the BSA wishes to do with their criteria for membership in a private club.
@MataHarley: I’m glad you agree.
@MataHarley #560:
“However it is still none of your business, or that of the homosexuals, what the BSA wishes to do with their criteria for membership in a private club.”
I think that some of the blow-back the BSA has experienced over its discriminatory policies has been justified by its acceptance of taxpayer-funded government support, an acceptance that erodes the “privacy” of the “club.” To the plaintiffs, one public dollar MAKES it the public’s business what the BSA policies are:
“ While the Boy Scouts claim they can discriminate because they are a private organization, they hold a Congressional Charter and enjoy support and participation from government agencies and officials.”
“It is unconscionable that an organization that discriminates against Americans based on religion and sexual orientation is permitted to do so with the support of the taxpayer funding. If the Boy Scouts is determined to continue discriminating, it should be stripped of all public funding and support from public agencies.”
In the minds of the plaintiffs, once a public dollar has been accepted, a line has been crossed. As you’ve noted, the courts don’t see it that way and have sided every time with the BSA. But you have also pointed out that the courts don’t always get everything right, either. Sometimes, they’re just expedient.
A similar dilemma exists in the tax-exempt qualifications of those quasi-political organizations that the IRS was playing fast and loose with: The laws that address tax-exempt status don’t provide for any of the wiggle room that courts have repeatedly granted 501c3 applicants regarding political activity:
“Section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from supporting political candidates, and are subject to limits on lobbying. They risk loss of tax exempt status if these rules are violated.[30][31]
Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to intervene in elections to public office.[32] The Internal Revenue Service website elaborates upon this prohibition as follows:
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
Voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.”
It would seem that virtually any Tea Party-associated entity would fail to meet the non-alignment requirements, just as liberally-aligned groups would similarly fail to qualify for tax-exempt status, but neither the courts nor public opinion has had much stomach for strict adherence to Internal Revenue Code. I would suggest that in this case, just as in the BSA case, the “right” path was forsaken in favor of the expedient one.
@George Wells: George, sounds about right.