Boy Scouts May be Close to Ending Ban on Gay Members, Leaders

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16739587-boy-scouts-close-to-ending-ban-on-gay-members-leaders


The Boy Scouts of America, one of the nation’s largest private youth organizations, is actively considering an end to its decades-long policy of banning gay scouts or scout leaders, according to scouting officials and outsiders familiar with internal discussions.

If adopted by the organization’s board of directors, it would represent a profound change on an issue that has been highly controversial -- one that even went to the US Supreme Court. The new policy, now under discussion, would eliminate the ban from the national organization’s rules, leaving local sponsoring organizations free to decide for themselves whether to admit gay scouts.

[Anti Federalist]

LOL - yeah that worked out great for the Catholic Church.

[sailingaway]

It was always stupid. The point is to REALLY enforce their child protection rules, which means each scout leader on a camp out has to carry an extra one man tent in case someone else's kid's tent fails, so that kid can go in with their own kids. There is a RULE that no adult sleep in the same tent as a child not their own on scouting events. The troop I was involved in had that rule and yearly sent a memo to national saying that due to their religious faith and moral beliefs they couldn't discriminate in that fashion, and were staying with Scouts because they felt it was better to change it from the inside, and the rest of the scouting program was so good.

The people who cause problems almost never are KNOWN to be gay anyhow, and it is their being child predators that is the problem.

So long as it is voluntary and pushed from pressure from within, I am entirely for this.

[Confederate]

Yay! Let's actually encourage known sexual deviants to sleep in tents with young boys! What could ever go wrong?

[dannno]

I doubt it will happen.

If they do, they have to be careful about how they do it. The LDS church (among others) has a sponsoring troop in EVERY ward (most LDS church buildings have around 3 wards, so 2-3 troops per building). The LDS church has always threatened to drop out if the BSA adopts these new values and so they would be losing probably millions of scouts if they did this.

[sailingaway]

I doubt it will happen.

If they do, they have to be careful about how they do it. The LDS church (among others) has a sponsoring troop in EVERY ward (most LDS church buildings have around 3 wards, so 2-3 troops per building). The LDS church has always threatened to drop out if the BSA adopts these new values and so they would be losing probably millions of scouts if they did this.


They have really strict RULES, the point is getting the LDS to actually follow them. It is that nodding at the rules that lets the problems occur, imho. But they could even do it regionally, and let those who are nervous about it watch how it turns out in the states that think it is fine.

[dannno]

Yay! Let's actually encourage known sexual deviants to sleep in tents with young boys! What could ever go wrong?

The problem is that your definition of sexual deviant is a personal definition. Nowadays, a homosexual is not a sexual deviant. A child predator is a sexual deviant, and there is no correlation between homosexuality and child predators, so I don't necessarily see any reason for alarm. But I do respect the right of these private groups to make their own rules and hold their own values, even if they don't make any sense in today's society.

[Matt Collins]

Yeah this will decimate the BSA if they adopt this. In addition I'm personally against it because it clearly violates the values of the organization.

[Matt Collins]

Yay! Let's actually encourage known sexual deviants to sleep in tents with young boys! What could ever go wrong?This has nothing to do with that, let's not confuse the issue of pedophiles and gay youth, they're not the same problems.

[SpreadOfLiberty]

This has nothing to do with that, let's not confuse the issue of pedophiles and gay youth, they're not the same problems.

Sexual attraction is the problem.

Having homosexual boys sleep with hetero boys in tents would be worse than girls sleeping with them IMO.

Scouting goes all the way up to 18. Way past puberty.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Next they will be letting girls join...

And what of the transsexuals?

btw: anyone know where I could find a copy of that classic "Be Prepared" poster? The one GSA went to court to make the poster company stop distributing it?

-t

[TonySutton]

First, from what I am reading in the news, the BSA is looking at ending this at the national level BUT will allow local groups to set their own policies. In other words, troops sponsored by churches will not be asked to violate their religious laws. This move will allow secular sponsored groups to allow gay leaders and gay scouts. I think this is a great win-win for everyone concerned.

Second, in response to this...

Sexual attraction is the problem.
Having homosexual boys sleep with hetero boys in tents would be worse than girls sleeping with them IMO.
Scouting goes all the way up to 18. Way past puberty.

This is already happening because boys start scouting in kindergarten and do not realize they are gay until many years later. I don't recall hearing or reading about an outbreak of scout on scout gay rapes at scouting events so I am guessing it is a rare occurrence.

[tangent4ronpaul]

I don't recall hearing or reading about an outbreak of scout on scout gay rapes at scouting events so I am guessing it is a rare occurrence.

I have, sans the rape part. But that was GSA, not BSA.

-t

[SpreadOfLiberty]

This is already happening because boys start scouting in kindergarten and do not realize they are gay until many years later. I don't recall hearing or reading about an outbreak of scout on scout gay rapes at scouting events so I am guessing it is a rare occurrence.

The no-gay policy is not an actual enforceable policy.

However, it ensures that those who are gay keep it to themselves, thus we don't see these conflicts.

[TonySutton]

The no-gay policy is not an actual enforceable policy.

However, it ensures that those who are gay keep it to themselves, thus we don't see these conflicts. bold mine

Please google the name Ryan Andresen. He is the young man that was denied Eagle Scout because he came out as gay.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

bold mine

Please google the name Ryan Andresen. He is the young man that was denied Eagle Scout because he came out as gay.

SpreadOfLiberty, I surmise, was suggesting it's not enforceable as long as the homosexual person keeps their mouth shut about being a homosexual. It's only when one chooses to flaunt their sexual orientation that the policy becomes realistically enforceable.

[TonySutton]

SpreadOfLiberty, I surmise, was suggesting it's not enforceable as long as the homosexual person keeps their mouth shut about being a homosexual. It's only when one chooses to flaunt their sexual orientation that the policy becomes realistically enforceable.

by flaunt you mean hide in a closet?

[dannno]

Having homosexual boys sleep with hetero boys in tents would be worse than girls sleeping with them IMO.


Umm, I hate to burst your bubble, but I guarantee that is happening all the time everywhere already. There are millions of former gay boy scouts who just never was open about their sexuality until a later age. I think what you don't want is OPENLY gay scouts and/or leaders sharing tents and whatnot.

[Ranger29860]

This group continues to amaze me.... You people do realize that LBGT should be the easiest group for us to recruit right? But hell why don't we just keep comparing them to pedophiles and freaks.

[angelatc]

bold mine

Please google the name Ryan Andresen. He is the young man that was denied Eagle Scout because he came out as gay.

He should have kept quiet, then.

[angelatc]

This group continues to amaze me.... You people do realize that LBGT should be the easiest group for us to recruit right? But hell why don't we just keep comparing them to pedophiles and freaks.


You're delusional.

[Ranger29860]

You're delusional.

how so?

[angelatc]

SpreadOfLiberty, I surmise, was suggesting it's not enforceable as long as the homosexual person keeps their mouth shut about being a homosexual. It's only when one chooses to flaunt their sexual orientation that the policy becomes realistically enforceable.


Who would want to be the boy that had to share a tent with the openly gay scout? Uh, nobody. If for no other reason than the other kids would be merciless about it at school for the rest of said kid's life.

[TonySutton]

He should have kept quiet, then.

Why are you even here? You should just be quiet and accept the world the statists want you to live in.

[angelatc]

how so?


There is nothing in the liberty movement for the politically active gays. They want big government. They want permission to get married, government permission to adopt children, government protection from being fired...the list goes on and on. There is nothing in the liberty movement that would ever appeal to that sector of gays.

If they were going to lean republican / libertarian, they already would.

[Smart3]

Who would want to be the boy that had to share a tent with the openly gay scout? Uh, nobody. If for no other reason than the other kids would be merciless about it at school for the rest of said kid's life.
I seriously doubt that is likely. In most schools, there isn't discrimination against gay kids or against their friends.

And by the way, what the hell does "openly gay" even mean in this context? I thought Scouts were forbidden from talking about sex? Or is that just the Christian ones in my area?


This group continues to amaze me.... You people do realize that LBGT should be the easiest group for us to recruit right? But hell why don't we just keep comparing them to pedophiles and freaks.
You are definitely right about that. There's a truckload of gays in the Libertarian Party at the moment.


There is nothing in the liberty movement for the politically active gays. They want big government. They want permission to get married, government permission to adopt children, government protection from being fired...the list goes on and on. There is nothing in the liberty movement that would ever appeal to that sector of gays.

If they were going to lean republican / libertarian, they already would.
The average gay person couldn't care less about marriage or adoption. Virtually all gays actively involved in the HRC, Lambda, FtM, GLAAD, etc are slaves of the Democrats anyways.

The majority of gays can be sympathetic to us. Close friend of mine is gay (although it would be impossible to tell), and he's fairly libertarian including on the marriage issue.

[angelatc]

Why are you even here? You should just be quiet and accept the world the statists want you to live in.

If Josh had a rule that conservative women were not allowed to post here, I would fully expect that I would not be allowed to stay once I announced I was, in fact, a conservative woman.

[angelatc]

I seriously doubt that is likely. In most schools, there isn't discrimination against gay kids or against their friends.

.

I can assure you that here in the liberal bastion of Michigan, the high school boys still have a sneer in their voice when they refer to "that gay kid." I think they were born that way. Deal with it.

[Ranger29860]

There is nothing in the liberty movement for the politically active gays. They want big government. They want permission to get married, government permission to adopt children, government protection from being fired...the list goes on and on. There is nothing in the liberty movement that would ever appeal to that sector of gays.

If they were going to lean republican / libertarian, they already would.


http://www.outrightusa.org/


Hate to ruin your perfect world but there are quite a few members of the LBGT community on these forums. Also according to those "wants" you claim they want every minority group in the US falls under those. Does not mean we should stop trying to talk to them?

[Danke]

This group continues to amaze me.... You people do realize that LBGT should be the easiest group for us to recruit right? But hell why don't we just keep comparing them to pedophiles and freaks.


I always thought necrophiliacs and those into beastiality would be the easiest to "recruit."

[TonySutton]

There is nothing in the liberty movement for the politically active gays. They want big government. They want permission to get married, government permission to adopt children, government protection from being fired...the list goes on and on. There is nothing in the liberty movement that would ever appeal to that sector of gays.

If they were going to lean republican / libertarian, they already would.

I could not disagree with you more. I have talked quite a few gays down the path to liberty. Why were they democrats? Because that was the only party that would talk to them about the things the felt were important. In some cases democrats were the only people who treated them like humans. Once you engage anyone, left or right, it is fairly easy to show them how liberty will give them exactly what they want.

[Smart3]

I can assure you that here in the liberal bastion of Michigan, the high school boys still have a sneer in their voice when they refer to "that gay kid." I think they were born that way. Deal with it.

Michigan is no longer liberal. It has no recognition of same-sex unions, it would vote to end abortion if Roe were repealed, it voted in Snyder and other douchebag Repubs, and has elected two of the most conservative Congressmen in the nation.

And if that is their attitude, they should be disciplined. Bigotry is nurture not nature.


I always thought necrophiliacs and those into beastiality would be the easiest to "recruit."
Dafuq?

We need to recruit those people? I thought they were already on our side. :P

[MelissaWV]

There is nothing in the liberty movement for the politically active gays.

In a world of really awful and ignorant things to say, this one is pretty up there. Strangely, there are LGBT on these forums. Gluttons for punishment I guess.

* * *

I wonder if some of you even read what this is about. I wonder if you noticed that it's not a forced inclusion, but the Boy Scouts saying it's up to local groups and their sponsors. It is highly unlikely local groups are going to actively recruit and install gay leadership, especially if it means losing money. There are a few niche places where there might be a "gay" group or two.

As for LGBT being sexual deviants, it's always a hilarious accusation given what I know quite a significant number of heterosexuals are doing on any given night.

[dannno]

I could not disagree with you more. I have talked quite a few gays down the path to liberty. Why were they democrats? Because that was the only party that would talk to them about the things the felt were important. In some cases democrats were the only people who treated them like humans. Once you engage anyone, left or right, it is fairly easy to show them how liberty will give them exactly what they want.

Ya, exactly, when a gay person sees a homophobe on TV and it turns out to be Republican Rick Santorum or the like, it makes it pretty easy to choose between Republican and Democrat.

[dannno]

I wonder if some of you even read what this is about. I wonder if you noticed that it's not a forced inclusion, but the Boy Scouts saying it's up to local groups and their sponsors.

Ya the reason I brought up the LDS Church was because I'm not sure how they would take this. They have said in the past that if the BSA (Boys Scouts of America) allow gays, that they will stop colluding with them and will break off and do their own thing because they only want to be intimately involved with groups like that if the same/similar sets of values. So if the BSA does it like this it will still allow the LDS groups to bar gay individuals, but they won't be sharing the same values as the parent organization so they would have a tough decision to make.

And the reason I bring THAT up is because I'm pretty sure the LDS Church makes up a REALLY significant % of Boy Scouts because it is essentially a requirement that young men in the LDS Church participate in Scouting. It's part of being active in the church for a young man. So.. the LDS Church actually has a lot of weight in this decision.

[angelatc]

http://www.outrightusa.org/


Hate to ruin your perfect world but there are quite a few members of the LBGT community on these forums. Also according to those "wants" you claim they want every minority group in the US falls under those. Does not mean we should stop trying to talk to them?

If you want to spend your time trying to convert the relatively small politically active subset of 2% of the population, then by all means - you go right ahead.

[MelissaCato]

I do not like this idea. Not one bit.

[angelatc]

I could not disagree with you more. I have talked quite a few gays down the path to liberty. Why were they democrats? Because that was the only party that would talk to them about the things the felt were important. In some cases democrats were the only people who treated them like humans. Once you engage anyone, left or right, it is fairly easy to show them how liberty will give them exactly what they want.

Not when what they want has nothing to do with liberty.

[dannno]

If you want to spend your time trying to convert the relatively small politically active subset of 2% of the population, then by all means - you go right ahead.

LGBT is more like 20-25% because it includes people who are attracted to the same sex but may be either more attracted to the opposite sex or are un-willing to deal with the social stigma of being LGBT. Those people may not be openly gay or even appear to support the 'gay agenda', but they may very well be sympathetic to the plight. Then you have your Bachdoorman's of the world who are LGBT but they have been convinced that if they act on those feelings they will go to hell, so they over-compensate for some things and generally act really weird. There are a lot less of those people today because more younger people are accepting of the gay lifestyle.

[angelatc]

In a world of really awful and ignorant things to say, this one is pretty up there. .

Thanks for not addressing any of the actual political examples I gave. That really worked to make you look much more enlightened and fashinable than me, don't you think?

[angelatc]

LGBT is more like 20-25% because it includes people who are attracted to the same sex but may be either more attracted to the opposite sex or are un-willing to deal with the social stigma of being LGBT. Those people may not be openly gay or even appear to support the 'gay agenda', but they may very well be sympathetic to the plight. Then you have your Bachdoorman's of the world who are LGBT but they have been convinced that if they act on those feelings they will go to hell, so they over-compensate for some things and generally act really weird. There are a lot less of those people today because more younger people are accepting of the gay lifestyle.


Why are you just making up numbers with no sources?

[dannno]

Not when what they want has nothing to do with liberty.

People have been killed for being gay, some states even have laws against it. LGBT is absolutely about liberty. It's also about equality, equal rights for everbody, hence gay marriage and whatnot.

[Smart3]

If you want to spend your time trying to convert the relatively small politically active subset of 2% of the population, then by all means - you go right ahead.

LGBT were 5% of the electorate, 3/4ths went for Obama over Romney. Guess what? Obama wouldn't have won without them!

[angelatc]

Ya, exactly, when a gay person sees a homophobe on TV and it turns out to be Republican Rick Santorum or the like, it makes it pretty easy to choose between Republican and Democrat.

Homophobe?

[dannno]

Why are you just making up numbers with no sources?

Because "sources" provide bullshit data. You can't take a public poll and ask how many people are gay, only about 2%, nationwide, (hint, hint) will say "yes".

[Confederate]

I do not like this idea. Not one bit.

I like this Melissa.

[dannno]

Homophobe?

Ya, people who treat gay people like they have the plague when their own straight neighbor most likely cheated on his wife and kids the night before. But no, gay people, they're REALLY bad, forget about people who purposely have children and then abandon them, those gay people who don't take on the responsibility of child rearing to begin with, they are the REALLY evil ones :rolleyes:

[angelatc]

LGBT were 5% of the electorate, 3/4ths went for Obama over Romney. Guess what? Obama wouldn't have won without them!

Without addressing the actual validity of those numbers, you're bringing me back to my point. The majority of the politically active gay people have no interest in anything except themselves.

They want the government handouts, special laws, and federal recognition of marriage. They didn't turn out for Obama because they thought Romney was too rich - they turned out for Obama because they have an agenda, and it isn't ours.

[MelissaWV]

Well at least now it's the "majority" and not "there's not a single thing in the liberty movement those people like."

How about this. How about the forums, with a slim population to begin with, be used to actually move towards the Mission Statement rather than as a place to alienate the few people who were curious enough to get involved?

Nahhh Tell me more about how __________________ are bad people and unnecessary.

Next week we can get back to whining about how few people actually ever get involved for some strange reason.

615 people online. Let's lose a dozen or two of those, please. This place is just too crowded to the brim with people who donate, become delegates, run for office, and contribute.

[dannno]

Why are you just making up numbers with no sources?

Because they are closer to reality?

[angelatc]

Ya, people who treat gay people like they have the plague when their own straight neighbor most likely cheated on his wife and kids the night before. But no, gay people, they're REALLY bad, forget about people who purposely have children and then abandon them, those gay people who don't take on the responsibility of child rearing to begin with, they are the REALLY evil ones :rolleyes:


So, you're properly described as having Christianophobia, then?

This is the biggest problem with America today. We have no idea how to conduct oursleves with dignity, and we tend to scorn people who even try. Instead, we settle for trying to believe that other people are more despicable, hoping that it will somehow validate ourselves.

We have the gay lobby trying to push the Catholic church out of the adoption business, because the fact that they can get babies from any number of agencies isn't good enough for them.

There is nothing freedom related in the gay agenda. I have no more interest in pandering to them than I do welfare queens.

[familydog]

Clearly the Boy Scout organization is making a mistake. The only way to rid ourselves of the devilish and dirty homosexuals is to pretend they don't exist. I don't want my son being infected by them gay cooties.

[angelatc]

Because they are closer to reality?

If it was reality, you'd have a source. You can't just take a poll of the people in your life,then add the guys who wear short shorts who give you those funny hunches, and declare it reality. Well you can, but the real world won't acknowledge it as factual.

[sailingaway]

Who would want to be the boy that had to share a tent with the openly gay scout? Uh, nobody. If for no other reason than the other kids would be merciless about it at school for the rest of said kid's life.

Any scout who brings their own tent doesn't have to share with anyone they don't want to share with.

[angelatc]

Clearly the Boy Scout organization is making a mistake. The only way to rid ourselves of the devilish and dirty homosexuals is to pretend they don't exist. I don't want my son being infected by them gay cooties.

Just to stir the pot, I didn't let my kids join because the Scouts don't allow girls. I didn't go to Congress and cry about it though. I let them join 4H instead.

[angelatc]

Well at least now it's the "majority" and not "there's not a single thing in the liberty movement those people like."

How about this. How about the forums, with a slim population to begin with, be used to actually move towards the Mission Statement rather than as a place to alienate the few people who were curious enough to get involved?

Nahhh Tell me more about how __________________ are bad people and unnecessary.

Next week we can get back to whining about how few people actually ever get involved for some strange reason.

615 people online. Let's lose a dozen or two of those, please. This place is just too crowded to the brim with people who donate, become delegates, run for office, and contribute.

There's not enough of them to make a difference. Plus, speaking of alienating people, for every gay person that carries our banner, I suspect we lose about 100 traditional GOP votes. I'd rather win elections than pass out warm fuzzies.

[angelatc]

Because "sources" provide bullshit data. You can't take a public poll and ask how many people are gay, only about 2%, nationwide, (hint, hint) will say "yes".


Yes, and scientific polling methodology has absolutely no way of compensating for that. <rolls eyes>

[MelissaWV]

There's not enough of them to make a difference. Plus, speaking of alienating people, for every gay person that carries our banner, I suspect we lose about 100 traditional GOP votes. I'd rather win elections than pass out warm fuzzies.

Yeah that's it... but don't worry, I'm also the wrong color and religion. I can go a lot higher than 100 if we're talking about "traditional GOP votes" and using hyperbole!

Of course, 100 traditional GOP votes aren't worth a whole lot if there aren't any delegates and if there's less money in coffers. If you'd like to win elections by pandering to the "I hate ___________" segment, and letting those of us on the forums who aren't perfectly white-washed Stepford droids know we're not wanted, please go on. How's it working out for the "movement" so far?

How about a message of personal responsibility and freedom, rather than "we don't need you people! We need the traditionalists! We lose elections because you kiss girls!!!"?

[familydog]

Just to stir the pot, I didn't let my kids join because the Scouts don't allow girls. I didn't go to Congress and cry about it though. I let them join 4H instead.

Damn right. I was a Boy Scout. I made Eagle rank. I tell ya, those gays infected the entire organization. I kept getting offers for wild sodomy in the forest. I, as a non-gay, have no will power and had to comply to their homosexual wiles.

[Smart3]

Anyone who thinks "LGBT" is 25% of the population is seriously misled.

L/G represent perhaps 2.5% of the population, with perhaps .5% being Trans. At best, Bis represent 5-7%. A grand total of 10% can be considered conservative. This is 31 million people, or half the number of Catholics in the country.

[dannno]

Anyone who thinks "LGBT" is 25% of the population is seriously misled.

L/G represent perhaps 2.5% of the population, with perhaps .5% being Trans. At best, Bis represent 5-7%. A grand total of 10% can be considered conservative. This is 31 million people, or half the number of Catholics in the country.

But that's ridiculous, the only people who are bi (or gay, for that matter) who will admit it are the ones who have a relatively healthy attraction towards those of the same sex AND are willing to go through all of the social ostracization that comes with it. There are tons of people out there who will sweep all of their bi-curious aside simply because they don't want to deal with what their parents or peers might say.. these are people who might actively or at some point participate in bi activities if they lived in a more accepting society. And yes, they will sweep it aside to the point where they won't even admit to it in a study.

[Smart3]

But that's ridiculous, the only people who are bi (or gay, for that matter) who will admit it are the ones who have a relatively healthy attraction towards those of the same sex AND are willing to go through all of the social ostracization that comes with it. There are tons of people out there who will sweep all of their bi-curious aside simply because they don't want to deal with what their parents or peers might say.. these are people who might actively or at some point participate in bi activities if they lived in a more accepting society. And yes, they will sweep it aside to the point where they won't even admit to it in a study.

You're a nut. Only a tiny minority of LGBT are in the closet still. And that "bi-curious" crap is annoying.

If you want to do sex acts with both male and female genitalia, then you're bi. End of discussion.

[Ranger29860]

If you want to spend your time trying to convert the relatively small politically active subset of 2% of the population, then by all means - you go right ahead.

Yeah, because only LBGT members want those issues addressed.....

so 3% of population is LBGT

Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/158066/special-report-adults-identify-lgbt.aspx

But lets not forget family members and members of their community who may not be LBGT. So you have the parents of a LBGT member who may be disgusted about the rhetoric coming from one party against their child then siblings . You might also have a relative who knows the person and feels the same way since they have a much more personal relationship with a LBGT individual and are less likely to be homophobic.

Then you have a community stance since a community may be more accepting towards LBGT and find the rhetoric just as disgusting and might turn their vote off.

This isn't about converting, this is about

1. Consistency as a libertarian
2. Being a decent human being
3. Live and let live attitude
4. The appearance that we are not all just a bunch of bigots.

Those four things will gain us a lot more votes than the one's we lose trying to cater to social conservatives. BTW SoCons are just as fascist and dangerous as neocon's and liberals.

[Ranger29860]

You're a nut. Only a tiny minority of LGBT are in the closet still. And that "bi-curious" crap is annoying.

If you want to do sex acts with both male and female genitalia, then you're bi. End of discussion.


Sadly that is not true, I think we tend to localize "out and about" LBGT members . So if you visit SF you are gonna think every LBGT member is out. But you come to the south and you will see a lot of people so far into the closet that they have come out the other side (Santorum).

[Ranger29860]

BTW Danno isn't the only one who thinks of those numbers.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx

They may be wrong but it is a interesting phenomenon.

[Smart3]

Sadly that is not true, I think we tend to localize "out and about" LBGT members . So if you visit SF you are gonna think every LBGT member is out. But you come to the south and you will see a lot of people so far into the closet that they have come out the other side (Santorum).

No, it is true. If you prove otherwise, I'll admit I was wrong.

and I'm in the South, specifically the fundie part.

[Ranger29860]

No, it is true. If you prove otherwise, I'll admit I was wrong.

and I'm in the South, specifically the fundie part.

Both sides of this are anecdotal since neither of us have not linked any source. I am talking personal experience here (born and raised in SC) that most LBGT people I know are not out of the closet to family and friends. Though your experience may vary.

[TheTexan]

I don't really care which hole someone sticks their dick in. Not sure why it's a big deal to some people.

[dannno]

You're a nut. Only a tiny minority of LGBT are in the closet still.

With all of the social stigma that exists in MOST places in this country, I have the opinion that it is precisely the opposite.



And that "bi-curious" crap is annoying.

If you want to do sex acts with both male and female genitalia, then you're bi. End of discussion.

See, I completely agree with you here for the most part. Because being attracted to the opposite sex is not a digital 0 or 1 (straight or gay) but it is actually a curved spectrum. Those of us on the 'straight' end of the curve may (or may not) have some tiny, insignificant attraction toward the same sex, but with sex there is also a 'repel effect'. If the 'repel effect' is greater than the amount of attraction with all specimens of the same sex (or who appear to be the same sex), then the person is essentially straight. So where I would disagree might be a person who has some amount of attraction to the same sex but also carries a similar amount of repel effect. They might not ACTUALLY know until they try it, and they might find out that the repel effect is greater, or lesser, than they had imagined. This might put them back to being completely straight even though they may have had a sexual encounter with someone of the same sex. It doesn't mean it is a 'choice' for them, it's just how the incident played out.

The problem is that religious nuts and a society who isn't open to homosexuality can add to that 'repel effect' because they are not repelled so much at the idea of being intimate with a person of the same sex, but they might be repelled at the idea of having to deal with the social stigma. This is why I believe that a LOT of bi people are actually in the closet, because they, of all people, do have the ability to choose relationships with people of the opposite sex (though they might not fall in love or be as successful if they were more free to pursue their own types of relationships).

[MelissaWV]

I don't really care which hole someone sticks their dick in. Not sure why it's a big deal to some people.

In this case, because the hole belongs to their child. Of course the assumption is that a) local Boy Scout groups will change their rules, b) their precious child was not going to encounter a predator out there (hetero or otherwise) unless it's an openly homosexual person. The child in question is statistically way more likely to be molested by an adult in their family or group of close family friends.

[TheTexan]

In this case, because the hole belongs to their child. Of course the assumption is that a) local Boy Scout groups will change their rules, b) their precious child was not going to encounter a predator out there (hetero or otherwise) unless it's an openly homosexual person. The child in question is statistically way more likely to be molested by an adult in their family or group of close family friends.

Right, but I doubt many here would object as much to a woman teaching boyscouts, or a man teaching girlscouts, as they do to a gay man teaching boyscouts.

It's not like being gay makes you a pedophile.

[Ranger29860]

It's not like being gay makes you a pedophile.

You will find that quite a few members here actually hold the opposite stance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17u01_sWjRE

[Danke]

You will find that quite a few members here actually hold the opposite stance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17u01_sWjRE


So sad, when I was growing up, my dad (with me riding along) would pick up hitchhikers. Times have changed. Too bad we can't trust anyone anymore.

[Anti Federalist]

I always thought necrophiliacs and those into beastiality would be the easiest to "recruit."

Q.E.D.

[Danke]

Q.E.D.


Well, we do have the sailors boy's vote locked up.