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.
@George Wells:
You didn’t say “Federal,” you said “military.” Do you not know the difference? Are you so clueless that you think someone who just signed up for a four year hitch can just walk into their C.O.’s office and say “I quit” and that is the end of that?
Define mass exodus. Are you telling me that with the DADT policy that there were no military that got out when their hitch was up and didn’t reenlist and that the numbers of military personnel didn’t decrease?
Now, I’m sure you will look up the numbers and it will be interesting to see how you spin it.
@George Wells: #468
You are responding to what you ‘think’ I said rather than what I said. First, I don’t care what your real name is. There are many names on here that ‘sound’ like real names but are only monikers. When you said you use your real name, I only said ‘how do we know it’s your real name’. I didn’t say I doubted it, you just threw in an interpretation to get to that point. If it isn’t really your name, how would anyone know? I could tell you my ‘real’ name is “Redteam”, but you likely wouldn’t believe it, well, from my point of view, it is just as likely as ”George Wells” is. One only sounds more realistic. But, as I said, I don’t really care what your name is and I don’t care what Mata’s ‘real name’ is or Retire05. Now I am betting that Ilovebeeswarzone is her ‘real’ name, don’t you think so?
@George Wells: #468
Geez, George, I would think most of us here are retired, as I have been for awhile.
@Redteam:
George and Mata seem quite adroit at that.
That has to be the joke of the month.
@Redteam, I wouldn’t wager a personal guess as to attitudes of parents today since both Scouts and their parents are very different from my era. And I was always wondering how they were faring against the Info Age culture anyway… the trend to stare at monitors for gaming, necks always bent down in texting, and what little outdoor activity and personal face to face contact is had with youth today. So many are computer geeks and don’t spend much time doing the physical activities we did in our time.
The present BSA leadership embarked on a study at the beginning of this year – a “listening” expedition to find out how today’s parents and Scouts, as well as others outside of the Scouting organization, viewed the possible changes.
At the Scouting website is a link to the Executive Summary of that study. The PDF link to the 58 pg study results is here.
They’re not running in to this blind. Either way their membership drive can take a hit, so prior to deciding, they talked to those with the most vested.
The most interesting quick takeaway from the Executive Summary is the majority of youths between 16-18 oppose the current policy, and consider it antithesis to the core value of Scouting. (Details on pgs 14-16 of the PDF). I would think this is the most important finding because if the youth do not wish to become a member because of the policy, the membership dwindles despite what parents and adult BSA members – none of them from the current generation – think of the policy.
The second equation to that is if the youth does want to join with a changed policy, will his parents let him?
They also addressed two of the largest concerns from parents – child safety and role model leadership. They presented several different options of change and despite studies presented representing child abuse risk was low, they still stepped conservatively and the lifted ban allowed for gay youth members, but not for openly homosexual leadership. In addressing the safety and leadership aspects, they solicited analyses from four experts in the field of youth protection and child sexual abuse prevention that they used as consultants in the past.
They also have sections addressing legal ramification – which seem to remain largely unaffected – and fundraising/support – which seems to be split when it comes to major donors.
Utah had tons of public debate on this…local news channels.
The final statement is this:
More here:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/boy-scouts-of-america—utah-national-parks-council-statement-on-adoption-of-new-membership-resolution-208753381.html
I thought it was open-minded and interesting that the debates were issue-oriented and heated BUT, once the decision was made, they ended.
The nation could take a lesson.
Nan G, the LDS, even prior to the vote, announced an endorsement of acceptance of *any* decision the BSA came to last month. The LDS is the single largest (per this article) sponsor of of BSA nationally.
Upon the news, they issued their formal nod of approval.
Lots of friends in Utah, and have spent some extensive time there. Glad you’re enjoying it… and don’t forget to soak in the beauty of the Wasatch. Altho those days of inversion can get on your nerves…
@Redteam #472
“Why aren’t you demanding Mata, and 99% of the commenters on this blog reveal their identity?”
Is “demanding” your favorite verb? I have never demanded ANYTHING (show me where I have) but you keep saying that I have. Why?
“You originally went to work in 1980 and you’re already retired. Interesting.”
As if it is important, my draft number came up in 1969. I spent 6 years in the United States Navy. I was honorably discharged in June 1975. Went to college until getting a job at Virginia Chemicals in 1980. Retired from Hoechst Celanese in 1996. Became a certified steel tank inspector and worked that as an independent contractor affiliated with Interspect LLC for a number of years. Good investments support me comfortably. Thanks for your interest.
@retire #473:
“You didn’t say “Federal,” you said “military.” Do you not know the difference? Are you so clueless that you think someone who just signed up for a four year hitch can just walk into their C.O.’s office and say “I quit” and that is the end of that?”
Fine. “Military.” I was in the military for 6 years and understand the ramifications of enlistment. Mass exodus was not predicted in ignorance of enlistment restrictions on “quitting.” It DID predict that large numbers of servicemen would not re-enlist as a result of the change in policy on gays, just as it did when Blacks, and again when women, were allowed to join the ranks. None of those predictions were correct.
Are you suggesting that predictions of mass exodus were NOT made, or are you arguing that a mass exodus DID occur? Make up your mind.
Did some people decide on this issue to not reenlist? Sure. Service men and women decide not to reenlist for a variety of reasons. Retention is complex. An improving economy tends to reduce retention, as does involvement in war. Suicides are currently spiking in the fighting ranks, but the increase began when the fighting began, not when gays joined. The vast majority of men in uniform are not threatened by a homosexual in their midst. The few of them who ARE threatened are probably in the wrong job.
@Nan G #478:
Good point. Agreed. Thanks for the post.
@Redteam #475:
“Geez, George, I would think most of us here are retired, as I have been for awhile.”
The comment extolling the virtues of retirement was directed to Mata, who has indicated that she is NOT retired.
Methinks you doth protest too much.
@retire05 #476:
No surprise that honesty is a joke to you.
(Yawn)
Your posts used to include some legitimate points.
When they don’t – like now – what’s left is pitiful.
Get some rest.
And drink plenty of fluids… spitting can be dehydrating.
@George Wells:
I don’t believe I brought up the issue of “mass exodus.”
But we are not talking about MEN in the BSA, are we, George? We are talking about children, vulnerable, impressionable children, and their parents rights to determine who those children associate with.
Therein lies your own bigotry, George. If someone doesn’t want to associate with homosexuals, no matter their reason (social, religious, et al) they are, in your book, “in the wrong job” or in the wrong association. It is never the fault of the actions of queers that they are not accepted, the blame is always laid at someone else’s feet and you are just a victim.
So explain to me if inclusion is the only thing homosexuals want, then why the need for “Lavender” graduation ceremonies, or separate clubs where heterosexuals are not allowed. If inclusion is the goal, why the need to separate from other graduates? Instead, you support the destruction of groups that hold beliefs contrary to homosexuals. Where is YOUR tolerance for the opinions of others? You demand inclusion, all the while supporting separation.
You support any thug tactic to destroy any group that doesn’t support your lifestyle be it litigation, intimidation or actual physical threats to those who don’t tow the line for you. You’re like the black groups that demand equality then hold cotillions for their daughters and will not allow white girls to participate. You don’t want equality, you want special treatment. You want to be able to have an in-your-face attitude about your homosexuality then complain when people don’t agree with you. You SEEK victimhood because there is gold in them thar’ hills.
@Nan G:
So many are so willing to throw their long held beliefs away with no further debate. Sure they are…
@retire05 # 485:
In post #461 I said:
“I remember all of the “mass-exodus” predictions when Blacks were let into the military, and when women were let into the military, and when gays were let into the military. Somehow, there were no mass exoduses.”
You responded in post #464:
“There is one MAJOR difference between the military and the BSA. The military is a FEDERAL organization, the BSA is a PRIVATE organization.”
Was that a rebuttal of my #461 post, or were you just coincidentally reflecting on differences between the military and the BSA?
I obviously brought up the mass-exodus hysteria, but you ran with it.
Now, with your: “I don’t believe I brought up the issue of “mass exodus.” line, I take that you concede the point I made. Thank you.
Then you went on to attack:
“The vast majority of men in uniform are not threatened by a homosexual in their midst.” By saying:
“But we are not talking about MEN in the BSA, are we, George? We are talking about children…”
Well, actually, I WAS talking about men in the military. The entire context of the remark was:
“Did some people decide on this issue to not reenlist? Sure. Service men and women decide not to reenlist for a variety of reasons. Retention is complex. An improving economy tends to reduce retention, as does involvement in war. Suicides are currently spiking in the fighting ranks, but the increase began when the fighting began, not when gays joined. The vast majority of men in uniform are not threatened by a homosexual in their midst. The few of them who ARE threatened are probably in the wrong job.”
It was a continuation of OUR discussion about military retention that you now abandon. Your transposition of that sentence into a different context makes no sense at all. If you want to argue BSA policy, we can do that, and I’ll make pretend that the BSA – with all its uniforms and insignias and ranks and male bonding – bears no resemblance to the military context.
(Well, actually I won’t, as there are too many similarities to ignore.)
I said:
“The vast majority of men in uniform are not threatened by a homosexual in their midst. The few of them who ARE threatened are probably in the wrong job.
And you replied:
“Therein lies your own bigotry, George. If someone doesn’t want to associate with homosexuals, no matter their reason (social, religious, et al) they are, in your book, “in the wrong job” or in the wrong association.”
The military is not a “free association.” Members of the military do not enjoy the same palette of rights and privileges that civilians enjoy. That’s not by MY design. It is a stipulation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That Code specifies how members in the military must behave or suffer punishment for not. The UCMJ forbids discrimination. Anyone having a problem with adherence to the UCMJ should not enlist in the first place. In times of the “draft,” they may avoid conscription by “conscientious objection” for the reasons you list. It’s the Law.
Don’t blame me for what the BSA decided to do. I didn’t have a vote. But the same logic applies. People who object to what the BSA decided have every option. They can challenge the decision from within, they can quit, they can adapt, they can start a whole new “club.”
“So explain to me if inclusion is the only thing homosexuals want, then why the need for “Lavender” graduation ceremonies, or separate clubs where heterosexuals are not allowed.”
Inclusion is what they want, but there are a whole lot of graduation ceremonies that restrict the rights of gay graduates (can’t dance together, can’t canoodle, etc.) and I think that it’s understandable that those gay graduates might want to celebrate like everyone else.
“Separate Clubs?” Really? I’ve been gay MY whole life, and I’ve never heard of a club that didn’t welcome straights. Maybe those bathhouses that tickle you so much were “male-only,” but that wouldn’t mean “homosexual-only.” I’ve taken lots of straight women (and a few straight men) to “gay” clubs, and they had a blast. “Gay” clubs are really just “Gay-Friendly” clubs, not “Gay-Only.” How many gay clubs have you been turned away from? LOL!
“You support the destruction of groups…” “You demand inclusion…”
What, can’t make up your mind?
(BTW, I don’t do either, you only fanaticize that I do. Check my posts.)
“(You) complain when people don’t agree with you.”
Retire05, I’m HAPPY when you don’t agree with me. That my careful and thoughtful and largely respectful posts (that have NEVER included a single demand) are answered with your angry insults and derision proves exactly what gay people are up against. The more you spit, the better I look.
Thanks again.
@George Wells: 483
I protested something?
@retire #460:
“Did it not occur to you that perhaps the BSA leadership was just sick of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on litigation and it was easier to fold to the pressure they have been getting for years?”
By my figuring, that came to about 11 1/2 cents per scout. (Over 2.5 million scouts.) I guess they didn’t think the issue was worth that much. The BSA leadership got it right.
@George Wells:
Did you hold that same belief when the military did not allow homosexuals?
Should ‘conscientious objection” include homosexuality? Do you think there should be homosexual clubs and activities that exclude non-homosexuals? Should there be a ‘Black Caucus’ in Congress? Should there be an NAACP? What about a “Miss Black America’? Just asking to test your ‘consistency’.
@George Wells:
Wait!!! What happened to your ability to read into my statements what I never said? I thought you had that capability, now you are questioning what I said? Since you seem none to bright, I will enlighten you; there is a vast difference between the military (Federal) where a soldier cannot just walk in and resign if he/she doesn’t like new policy and the BSA (private organization) where they can. There is also a vast difference between “men” and children in the ability to deal with what they may consider an adverse environment.
And here we have a prime example of your double standards. You are saying that those who do not support the decision of the BSA can People who object to what the BSA decided have every option. They can challenge the decision from within, they can quit, they can adapt, they can start a whole new “club.” But then, on the other hand, homosexuals were also free to do that, instead of badgering the BSA until it caved on its traditional standards. Why didn’t homosexuals “start a whole new “club” if they didn’t like the rules of the BSA? You see, you simply proved that you do not support the views of others when it comes to having your own ox gored. Instead, you would rather put a group out of business than “start a whole new “club”.
Then that is not “inclusion” it is self imposed “exclusion.” How many gay clubs have I been to? A number of them. But just like I don’t like heterosexual drunks laying all over each other when what they really need is a cold shower or a hotel room, I feel the same about gays. Oh, that’s right; all gays want is their own privacy rights which include acting like fools in a PUBLIC bar.
You seem to be of the opinion they are one and the same. They are not.
Spit? Isn’t that what you lover does?
The more you defend your position, with double standards like “start a whole new club” the less support you will garner from the 97% of us that are heterosexual. So please continue to plead your case. I’m counting on it because it only helps those of us who know what your TRUE goal is.
@George Wells: 487
Could this ” whole new “club.”” exclude homosexuals? If they started a ” whole new “club.”” how long would it be before homosexuals demanded the right to infiltrate that ‘new club’, instead of just starting their own “whole new club”?
Nothing stops even frivolous litigation, RT. However since this is already trampled ground from the 80s-90s, and a SCOTUS decision in 2000 that these private clubs have no legal mandate to be an open membership, it’s just a waste of money.
It’s unlikely that LGBT organizations are going to fritter away their cash on the obvious. They would do just as was done after the SCOTUS decision… right along with atheists…. litigate when they think there is a conflict by granting federal funds. But the BSA even prevailed thru many of those. (and BTW, the BSA also had lawsuits from atheists, not happy with their oath to God too…)
I think what is lost on both you and retire is that the majority of the young Scout members, themselves, find the policy offensive. The decision should first be theirs to make. Second should be the parents. If some don’t wish their kids “associating” with the “abomination/sinner” gays, then that’s a battle they will have to have with their kids. All I can say is, good luck to the parent who tells their 16-18 something kid who they can see, or not see, based on their own morality. Hasn’t worked for generations.
@Redteam #490 & 492:
“Did you hold that same belief when the military did not allow homosexuals? Should ‘conscientious objection” include homosexuality? Do you think there should be homosexual clubs and activities that exclude non-homosexuals? Should there be a ‘Black Caucus’ in Congress? Should there be an NAACP? What about a “Miss Black America’? Just asking to test your ‘consistency’.”
Per the first question, you didn’t reference the post in question. If you do, I’ll be able to answer you.
Here is the test of my consistency:
In the public arena, discrimination is intolerable. The constitutional premise that all men are created equal and the subsequent guarantees of equal treatment under the law stipulate as much. Government should neither condone nor financially assist organizations that discrimination. Period.
In the private sector, both individuals and organizations may discriminate at will and at their own peril. If their discrimination violates state or Federal law (as in employment practices) “if you break it, you pay for it.” I don’t “demand” that, the law does.
“Could this ” whole new “club.”” exclude homosexuals? If they started a ” whole new “club.”” how long would it be before homosexuals demanded the right to infiltrate that ‘new club’, instead of just starting their own “whole new club”?”
Of course it could. The BSA DID, and the courts upheld their right to exclude homosexuals. I thought that decision was wrong based upon the BSA’s receipt of government money, but the decision was the Law.
“How long would it be before homosexuals demanded the right to infiltrate that ‘new club’?”
They ALREADY have that right, and they ALREADY have the right to sue for inclusion, just as you have the right to sue over Obama’s birth certificate. Neither has a guarantee that they will prevail upon decision.
When the military refused homosexuals, I thought that their policy was wrong. But it was the Law.
“Should ‘conscientious objection” include homosexuality?”
As in “should C.O. include the objection to serving WITH homosexuals?”
YES.
C.O. obviously does NOT include the objection to serving with Blacks or with women, but serving with homosexuals could violate religious principles a person might have, and that should qualify.
“Do you think there should be homosexual clubs and activities that exclude non-homosexuals?”
Well, they are legal – IF they are private, non-government-sponsored or subsidized entities. SHOULD they exist? If there is a need, why not? Between freedom of speech and freedom of association, I can’t find an objection to them.
“‘Black Caucus’?” Why not? And with your other tests, the same “consistent” logic.
@retire05 #491:
Please clarify your following:
“You are saying that those who do not support the decision of the BSA can People who object to what the BSA decided have every option.”
Seems to have gotten garbled – you might want to edit it.
You’re welcome.
@George Wells:
It was from 487
@George Wells:
strange that you feel that people elected to pass laws should have an exclusive club based on racism. Would you be okay with a ”Straight Caucus”?
@MataHarley:
That might be ok if the Boy Scouts were all 16 and up, but what about the 10 year old boys that might still not know what a predator was? What the hell, throw all the kids into a barrel and let them sort it out. I mean, shouldn’t those 18 year old homosexuals have open season on the 10 year old boys that still don’t have a clue what they’re in for?
I think the Boy Scouts should be opened to girls also, I mean if we’re forming organizations based on sexuality, shouldn’t the boys have a few girls to choose from and not be limited to just boys?
Black Caucus? you feel the same about that as George does? Just curious?
Even I’m confused at your question, RT. Do Americans have the freedom to associate, or not? SCOTUS said so in 2000.
And is that freedom lost just because you’re a politician?
I can’t even begin to count the amount of “caucus” associations in Congress. They are issue based. And, in my constitutional world, elected or not, they have every right to meet and discuss that issue.
@Redteam, I think the more important question is why you.. an uninvolved party to a private club of BSA – is huffing and puffing about what is an internal decision of the members and their parents?
The kids either want to join, or not. And most aren’t entirely removed from some political controversy at the age of this organization.
After the kids who either want, or not, to join, come the parents.
What business is it of yours, save to use it for political purposes?
@MataHarley:
You answer that question for me, Mata. Does white congressman have the right to belong to the Black Caucus? If there were freedom of association, wouldn’t they have that right. No, it’s not an organization that is open for freedom of association, it’s an Elected Members of Congress Racism Association.
I dunno, RT. Why don’t you show me where the Black Caucus rules require a member be black? Or is is just a choice that a Caucasian elected member chooses not to join?
@MataHarley:
Well, Mata, if you want to ask that kind of question, then answer this one. What business is it of yours what I want? I’m discussing it because it is the subject of this thread and that’s why we’re all talking about it.
So you think a 10 year old boy is old enough to understand the ramifications of camping with 18 year old homosexuals? Maybe he has always liked the uniform and his brother being in the ‘old’ organization (before infiltration) and wants to join but has no idea what awaits for him when turned loose to be preyed upon. Would you send your 10 year old daughter out camping with an 18 year old straight guy, just because ‘she wants to go’? I mean “She either wants to join, or not” and her worldly awareness at that age should ‘certainly make it appropriate’, right?
And don’t say it’s not the same ‘thing’, it’s exactly the same.
Because I’m not using it for a political agenda. Nor am I judging what the BSA does based on my own opinions. Not my business. Now convince me of your “constitutionalist” stance in that aspect.
That you can “talk” about it? Sure. Attempt to force your own opinions on a private organization? Well, I guess we have a different version of “constitutionalist” in mind.
Sorry, RT… apparently you added this to your comment above:
There two arguments here. And I’ll bypass that my “daughter” isn’t qualified to be a Boy Scout because of “gender discrimination”… LOL
One is your blanket perspective, using the negative version that if there is a homosexual kid in the organization, they (non homosexual kids) will be prey. Well, that sorta depends upon instincts of both the child and the parent, yes? The same two I keep tell you is *their* business, and not yours. After all, they know their local members and neighbors, not you.
You seem to think that 10 year olds are removed from this stuff. Sorry to say but that isn’t the case in the 21st, or even the late 20th, centuries. And even if I felt there was a “threat” of prey as a parent, do I know my child enough to gauge how they would respond?
There’s only so much as a parent you can do to prepare, and protect, a child from all that life exposes them to. Dang.. how will they navigate school halls or the street daily, fer heavens sake? In addition, you can’t be insisting that private organizations don’t “risk” your children’s exposure when you have full rights not to become a part of that private organization.
It’s all manufactured hysteria that is, according to the BSA’s own chosen analysts (unless you want to dispute them), a low risk factor. And ultimately depends upon what your own child’s perspective will be.
In the end, if you have no vested interest as a parent of a child in that organization, or a kid who is a member, what business is it if yours? You either believe in the freedom for private “clubs”, or Caucus, to exist – plus the freedom of association… or you don’t. Can’t get any more simple than that.
@MataHarley:
Sorry, Mata, I thought you knew everything. It’s in the rules (maybe un-written, but it’s there)
RT, that’s an response unworthy of what I expect of you. Either you know Caucus rules, or you don’t. And “unwritten” ones don’t count for your argument.
@MataHarley:
This is from Wiki, seems to make it rather crystal, would you like to argue further that all anyone (white) has to do is say they want to be a member?
Redteam: from your own quoted Black Caucus membership rules:
Point #1: You do not have to be black to be a member to caucus. How due diligent of you to actually look that up and confirm. You do need to be “invited”. I dare to suggest the obvious that to be “invited”, you might need to share similar views.
Point #2: Just as the BSA or any private “club” is within full constitutional rights to choose rules of their membership based on current membership choices, so is the right of any “caucus” to invite a member because of shared whatever.
This is consistent with Constitutional principles, via SCOTUS, every which way from Sunday.
So… now explain to me why you want to argue against the Black Caucus “unwritten” rules, but still complain about homosexuals applying/suing to be part of the BSA (which was rightfully overturned)?
Again… what business is it of yours? SCOTUS says private club. Just fine. Freedom of association. Just fine. Period.
@MataHarley:
Oh, and I am? What is my stated ‘political agenda’?
Why do you feel qualified to ‘judge’ the Boy Scouts?
ya gotta be eff’in kidding me… LOL
Look in the mirror, RT. No one except you and your bud, tiresome, are playing that game.
@MataHarley:
Nope, didn’t add it, it was there all the time.
For such a naive response, I have to conclude you are not a parent. No mother would say that her responsibility for guidance to her child ends when the child gets to be 10 years of age. Just throw her out and let her fend for herself, right?
So vested interest in the welfare of children in my community is none of my business if I don’t have a child in the community? What about my grandchildren and great grandchildren, they are none of my business? Mata, I don’t believe for one second that you really believe that children’s safety in your community is none of your business.
@MataHarley:
See that little ditty there? “It’s an unwritten rule.” you kinda overlooked that in your response. So they routinely invite white congressmen that turn them down, or something? You wouldn’t know offhand, would you, how many white congressmen have been ‘invited’ and they turned it down? would you?
I’m going to ask you one more time.. do you, or do you not believe in the right for free people (elected or not) and private “clubs”, to associate or not?
It seems that you are arguing with yourself. The BSA has a right to discrimination if they choose, as confirmed by SCOTUS in 2000. Just as the Black Caucus.. who has NO RULES ABOUT RACE… is allowed to choose their about invited membership.
The right to recourse is a constitutional right. Prevailing is not. How a “private” organization conducts their business is their own, and that of their membership. Yet you put “pressure” on them with your criticism, And now you are “judging” those that dare to do exactly what you are doing?
And you call yourself a “constitutionatlist”? Waaaaaaaay confused.
@MataHarley: By the way, I’m not judging the Boy Scouts, I’m judging the people that put the pressure on them to force them to change their rules.
@Redteam #496:
Per your question about the military, the Law is the Law. As I said, I disagreed with it, but I followed the Law. The punishments for breaking UCMJ rules are swift and substantial. There was no future in fighting battles that could not be won.
@Redteam #497:
“Would you be okay with a ”Straight Caucus”? ”
There isn’t one? What is the “Tea Party”? Any gays in there? Any Tea Party members advocation ANY gay rights?
I’m thinking that a “caucus” and a “club” are two different things.
@George Wells:
There isn’t one? wasn’t that the intent of my question of you? I have no idea the criteria of membership in the Tea Party. As far as I know, you only have to agree to drink Tea at the meetings.
So if there were a Straight Caucus of elected members of the House of Representatives, it would be ok with you?
Yes I do. That’s why I believe the Boy Scouts should have been allowed to keep homosexuals out without pressure from homosexual groups. Apparently the homosexual groups didn’t believe in the right for free people to belong to the Boy Scouts without interference from them.
You do seem to be confused. The BSA did not willingly decide to admit homosexuals, they had intense pressure by those that do not believe in the right for free people to decide for themselves. The fact that you claim they did it willingly, does not make it so.
Okay… getting somewhere. YOu believe that the BSA should be able to keep gay males out. SCOTUS agrees with you, and definitely said so in 2000. They have *continued* to keep out homosexuals for 13 years since then. But now you’re taking up the “it’s the pressure” BS from tiresome as an excuse because they decided to change? Shame on you.
The most important point is those who do *not* agree with you is that the BSA, themselves and their members, have decided to change their criteria. I linked the BSA’s own conducted study and their results. What the hell do you want? So what’s your problem when they do it themselves… with full knowledge of their membership? And if you’re not of their membership, what business is it if yours?
Second sentence… the “… without interference” bit. Nope. So anti-constitutional that I don’t know where to start. The right to redress grievances is in our founding documents. Even if they are frivolous. You are not free to conduct anything without “interference” if that is challenged in a court of law.
Can’t help it if your conclusions prove you aren’t all that in the astute category. A parent’s guidance never ends. But at some point, you have to let them deal with their current world with the base in morals and beliefs you hoped to pass on.
I’m going to ask this until you answer, RT. You are a self proclaimed “constitutionalist”. I don’t care how many liberal “for the children of my community” BS you want to argue. Answer these questions. (and unlike a few who require narrow answers, you are free to expound on details… :0)
1: Do you, or do you not, believe that a private club or organization has a right to put criteria on their own membership rules?
2: If you are not a member of that club, and other than pursuing the normal courses of litigation for political agenda purposes, do you feel you have a right to dictate those membership rules?
3: If a decision is rendered by our judicial system, do you feel your emotions about the issue overrule the judicial decisions?
@Redteam #514:
“I’m not judging the Boy Scouts, I’m judging the people that put the pressure on them to force them to change their rules.”
You have every right to question “the people that put the pressure on…”, and you have every right to opine on the subject, to argue about it, to complain about it, to lobby against it, to cry about it.
But as you are not a principal in the matter, not a voting BSA delegate or a judge hearing a case against the BSA, YOU are not JUDGING anything. You ARE being JUDGMENTAL. You are MAKING PRETEND that you are the “judge.” More to the point, you are suggesting how you would rule if you WERE the judge. Though with the amount of baggage you’d be bringing to the bench, you might want to recuse yourself for lack of impartiality.
One other question: Are you suggesting that the people who pressured the BSA broke any laws? What laws? They WERE within their rights, were they not? If you’re going to play “Judge,” you’d better have the Law on your side.
@Redteam #518:
“Is a “straight caucus OK?”
There IS, and I’m OK with it. It doesn’t break any rule I know of.
@Redteam #519:
“the right for free people to belong to the Boy Scouts without interference from them.”
There is no such right. Please, show me otherwise. Oh, you just made up that right. I’ll tell Scalia – he’ll be so happy.
@1:
Yes, but you don’t. You think it was okay for the homosexuals to force the change on the BSA. I don’t.
Not the membership rules themselves, but I have a right to object to them allowing offending members. An example, if I know the Boy Scouts send boys out camping together and then they suddenly start bunking 18 yr old homosexuals with 10 year old boys, it is ‘absolutely, definitely, my business.” It is the responsibility of members of the community, when they know of immoral, illegal activities taking place, to make sure they are stopped. You can not tell me that bunking an 18 year old homosexual and a 10 year old in the same tent is not immoral.
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?
Now I answered your questions, answer this one. Let’s say all this laissez faire takes place and within the next year or so, you hear about an 18 year old homosexual that had relations with a 10 year old on a Boy Scout campout, are you just gonna say, hey, they have the right to their own rules, it’s none of my business. They voted on it, that’s what they wanted, they got what they wanted, it’s their business, leave them alone. Is that gonna be your attitude? Remember, you gotta leave them alone unless you have a child in the organization. None of your business, right?
Ah yes, you are correct. It does NOT end at age 10. you still have to be concerned about those that are out there with the sole intent to do them harm. I got the opinion from what you said that by age 10 your daughter was old enough to do whatever the hell she wanted to do and that it was none of your damn business. Sorry, I don’t feel that way.
Excuse me? *I* don’t believe it was okay for the BSA to be challenged in court? Show me *anything* that states that.
But thank you for the qualification that you do *not* feel it was okay for a challenge in the court systems. And while you’re at it, never lecture me about again your so called “constitutional” beliefs. The right to recourse, as I’ve repeatedly said, is a constitutional right in the eyes of genuine “constitutionalists”.
Will you now be arguing that the SCOTUS decision to allow the BSA rules to exclude gays under our Constitution is wrong? Or do you only accept court decisions that agree with your personal beliefs as valid?
Again, *never* lecture me again on your “constitutionalist” beliefs. This does not revolve around whether you think the High Court is right or wrong via your personal views. They are the last word on the issue in our founding system.
WTF? What part of.. and using tiresome’s partial parsing as a clue… “never ends” doesn’t fit here?
Just because you continue to put in parental input for eternity, does that mean it’s accepted when it may be contrary to a belief system they have formed via their own path in life? (i.e. look at the Scout members themselves vs parents in the study) What would you suggest a parent do? Extermination? WAAAAAAAY late term “abortion”?
Get serious. Makes me wonder if *you’ve* ever been a parent. Or even, for that matter, a teen of your parents. :0)
@George Wells:
I don’t think I said anyone broke any laws, did I? They broke Mata’s rules of ‘let the people in the organization decide for themselves’ rule. They were NOT in the organization and they interfered in the operation of the organization.
@George Wells:
You’re not consistent George, 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 by them.
@George Wells: What is the name of that caucus, I haven’t heard of it.
@MataHarley:
So all that, it’s none of my business because I’m not a member doesn’t mean anything to you when asked why is it ok for the homosexuals, that ARE NOT members to interfere with the Boy Scouts right to ‘no interference’ from the non member homosexuals. Couldn’t you try to be a little consistent?
@George Wells: George, 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. She obviously didn’t tell Scalia either
@Redteam: Don’t know why or how that comment ended up in Red and underlined. I didn’t select anything to make it do that.