• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boy Scouts vote to welcome gay members

shrubnose said:
If those heterosexuals stayed home they probably didn't meet many people at all.

If they got out as much as most people they met plenty of gay people.

Do the math.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on what you consider "plenty". I live in a town of around 5,000 people. I've probably met, at most, around 500 of them. given the statisitcs and "doing the math"...there would be at most 100 gay people in town. at most I would have met 10 gay people. 10 =/= many, many
 
rocket88 said:
If you force yourself on somebody else, it's rape. So unless the other scout is also gay (and says you can), you're not allowed to stick your dick in his butt. It's not like it's never happened before at a scout camp. There were gay scouts before, and will be again. And the world will continue to revolve around the sun.

How did they stop it before? Do you really think there were no gay scouts doing it?
Click to expand...

There's always the possibility that something undesirable will happen but the whole idea of keeping kids of opposite sex apart is to reduce the ease with which something like that can happen. The same can be said with regard to the adults who are supervising.

Look, is anybody really surprised that some West Point staffer was filming naked female cadets? If you set up the situation so that it can happen it will happen. That's just human nature. You might not be able to stop it but if it's undesirable it's just plain stupid to make the possibility that it will happen even greater. I mean, seriously, are you going to put 20 twelve year old boys and girls in a room and tell them not to screw around and just assume that nothing is going to happen? No, because that would be stupid. The same applies to putting 18 hetero 12 year old boys in a room with 2 gays ones and assuming that nothing was going to happen. What happens when one of the gay kids gets beat up? You punish everyone and then what....do it again until they get it right? Ridiculous.
 
OscarB63 said:
I guess it depends on what you consider "plenty". I live in a town of around 5,000 people. I've probably met, at most, around 500 of them. given the statisitcs and "doing the math"...there would be at most 100 gay people in town. at most I would have met 10 gay people. 10 =/= many, many
Click to expand...

But if you've only met 500 people, that is not the norm. I'm 46, and the number of people I've met is in the many thousands,certainly.
 
shrubnose said:
The man's living in a dream world where he makes the rules and the rest of us follow them.

I may put him on my ignore list.
Click to expand...

What rule did I make up?

That forcing someone to provide you service is involuntary servitude?

No, that is just a fact.

That forcing someone to permit people on their property against their will is a violation of property rights?

No, that is again a fact.

That forcing someone to associate with other people is a violation of the right to association?

No, that is once again a fact.

What did I make up?

Do you believe you have the right to involuntary servants?
Do you believe you have the right to access property that is not your own?
Do you believe you can force people to associate with you?

If you answered no to all those questions you have to admit I made no mistakes in my judgment of the situation and everything I said is a fact. If you decide instead to answer no to all those question and still say people have the right to access any business then the only conclusion that can be made is that your illogical.
 
Last edited:
OscarB63 said:
I guess it depends on what you consider "plenty". I live in a town of around 5,000 people. I've probably met, at most, around 500 of them. given the statisitcs and "doing the math"...there would be at most 100 gay people in town. at most I would have met 10 gay people. 10 =/= many, many
Click to expand...





I gave this a little thought and decided that you are right, so I changed my post - check it out.

Plenty was the wrong word.
 
vash1012 said:
Correct.. They should have the right to choose to allow the people they want in their private club. You can make your own club if you'd like. Do you want to go play in the WNBA also?
Click to expand...

So its ok to open a theater....make it a private club and require blacks if they want to join to sit in the balcony.....right? "Private" Dinner clubs to keep Latinos and other "riff-raff out". "White only" country clubs so that we don't have to mix with the icky people?
 
Strucker said:
But if you've only met 500 people, that is not the norm. I'm 46, and the number of people I've met is in the many thousands,certainly.
Click to expand...

excuse me for being a poor country boy from Alabama. I have probably met less than 3000 people in my entire life (and a big chunk of them were in the military so the % of gays there was much lower than average). plus the % of gays in Alabama is less than half the national average (AL has the 9th lowest gay pop in the country)

taking all that into consideration, I ve most likely only met 30-40 gay people in my entire life. 30-40 over a span of 50 years is not "many, many".

so while I may not "be the norm"...that is not what was claimed. the claim was that "You have met many, many gay people, men and women, without having the faintest clue about their orientation.
EVERYONE has, WITHOUT EXCEPTION".
 
Lutherf said:
There's always the possibility that something undesirable will happen but the whole idea of keeping kids of opposite sex apart is to reduce the ease with which something like that can happen. The same can be said with regard to the adults who are supervising.

Look, is anybody really surprised that some West Point staffer was filming naked female cadets? If you set up the situation so that it can happen it will happen. That's just human nature. You might not be able to stop it but if it's undesirable it's just plain stupid to make the possibility that it will happen even greater. I mean, seriously, are you going to put 20 twelve year old boys and girls in a room and tell them not to screw around and just assume that nothing is going to happen? No, because that would be stupid. The same applies to putting 18 hetero 12 year old boys in a room with 2 gays ones and assuming that nothing was going to happen. What happens when one of the gay kids gets beat up? You punish everyone and then what....do it again until they get it right? Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

What happens if one of the straight ones gets beat up? That happens too. Sometimes because they think you're gay even if you're not. I wouldn't assume that 20 12 year olds could stay out of trouble no matter what their orientation.

I'd hesitate to put any orientation label on a 12 year old anyway. When they get to 17 or 18, that's one thing. All this changes is that the "official policy" reflects the reality that there were gay scouts anyway.
 
clownboy said:
Give it a rest I'm very familiar with scouting. Not in the slightest about training kids not to "act like assholes to each other".

Perhaps you need to read the oath again:

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.
Click to expand...

Well you seem quite selective on what parts of Scouting to cite... certainly have little interest in the emphasis Scouting puts on citizenship.
 
OscarB63 said:
excuse me for being a poor country boy from Alabama. I have probably met less than 3000 people in my entire life (and a big chunk of them were in the military so the % of gays there was much lower than average). plus the % of gays in Alabama is less than half the national average (AL has the 9th lowest gay pop in the country)

taking all that into consideration, I ve most likely only met 30-40 gay people in my entire life. 30-40 over a span of 50 years is not "many, many".

so while I may not "be the norm"...that is not what was claimed. the claim was that "You have met many, many gay people, men and women, without having the faintest clue about their orientation.
EVERYONE has, WITHOUT EXCEPTION".
Click to expand...

You're right then...the "no exception" part was too hyperbolic. ("Without exception" probably always is hyperbole...without exception! :))

Rather, let me backtrack and say I think my point holds generally true.

(By the way...have you known or suspected that you've met 30-40 gay people? Do you suppose they were the "flamboyant" types that the other poster insisted is always the case?)
 
disneydude said:
So its ok to open a theater....make it a private club and require blacks if they want to join to sit in the balcony.....right? "Private" Dinner clubs to keep Latinos and other "riff-raff out". "White only" country clubs so that we don't have to mix with the icky people?
Click to expand...

It is your right to decide to not "mix" with whoever you want. :mrgreen:
 
rocket88 said:
What happens if one of the straight ones gets beat up? That happens too. Sometimes because they think you're gay even if you're not. I wouldn't assume that 20 12 year olds could stay out of trouble no matter what their orientation.

I'd hesitate to put any orientation label on a 12 year old anyway. When they get to 17 or 18, that's one thing. All this changes is that the "official policy" reflects the reality that there were gay scouts anyway.
Click to expand...

But what's the point of creating the situation to begin with? Why create an environment that is conducive to undesirable behavior. Like you said, keeping 20 twelve year olds in line is difficult enough without all the additional crap.
 
Henrin said:
It is your right to decide to not "mix" with whoever you want. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

It certainly is. It is a person's choice not to join the Boy Scouts.
 
OscarB63 said:
yeah...but there is definitely something about being a liberal that intrinsically makes a man a queer. :lol: ;)
Click to expand...

I've got a really bad habit-- that I'm trying to break-- of using homosexual slurs to refer to people on the wrong side of certain policy debates. See, I keep having to remind myself that most of the actual homosexuals I've known have been better men (and women) than that. I wouldn't want to insult them.

Henrin said:
The right to life.
Click to expand...

Henrin said:
Not forcing property owners to accept everyone on their property is a wacky idea??
Click to expand...

Henrin said:
Want to tell me how you can put someone into involuntary servitude and not violate the thirteenth amendment? No? Yeah, I didn't think so.
Click to expand...

Well, it starts by them being a woman, and pregnant, and then "libertarians" like you forgetting everything you know about rights...
 
Strucker said:
You're right then...the "no exception" part was too hyperbolic. ("Without exception" probably always is hyperbole...without exception! :))

Rather, let me backtrack and say I think my point holds generally true.

(By the way...have you known or suspected that you've met 30-40 gay people? Do you suppose they were the "flamboyant" types that the other poster insisted is always the case?)
Click to expand...

again, it comes down to defining terms. what exactly does it mean to have "met" someone? merely passing someone on the street or seeing them in WAL-MART, IMHO, does not mean that I "met" them.

I would agree that most gay people are not the flamboyant, assless pants wearing, gay pride marching flamer type. However, I don't think that most people have "met" many,many gay people. There just aren't that "many" gay people in the country ....

given the statistics, you are just as likely to have met someone with hepatitis without knowing it as you are to have met a gay person without knowing it.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
Well, it starts by them being a woman, and pregnant, and then "libertarians" like you forgetting everything you know about rights...
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The right to life and the right to property of the unborn child conflicts with the right to property of the woman(the body in this case). If the woman were to act the other party would lose all their rights.

Btw, you know I'm not for outlawing abortion, right?
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
I've got a really bad habit-- that I'm trying to break-- of using homosexual slurs to refer to people on the wrong side of certain policy debates. See, I keep having to remind myself that most of the actual homosexuals I've known have been better men (and women) than that. I wouldn't want to insult them.
Click to expand...

oh, I agree.... it was a joke. no actual slur was intended. just a play on the old "not all rectangles are squares, but all squares are rectangles"

In general, I think "gay" slurs are pointless and stupid. since there is nothing wrong with being gay...how can calling someone "gay" be an insult?
 
OscarB63 said:
again, it comes down to defining terms. what exactly does it mean to have "met" someone? merely passing someone on the street or seeing them in WAL-MART, IMHO, does not mean that I "met" them.
Click to expand...

I would say having spoken to them, shared some small part of the larger social bond. I guess I meant it as "relatively trivial acquaintanceship"--say, having more than once exchanged pleasantries with a cashier at the grocery store. (Technically it would require only a single meeting, really, but anyway....)

I would agree that most gay people are not the flamboyant, assless pants wearing, gay pride marching flamer type. However, I don't think that most people have "met" many,many gay people. There just aren't that "many" gay people in the country ....
Click to expand...

Again, if we take the "2%" number for the sake of argument, it would place, for me, the likley number of homosexuals I"ve unwittingly met somewhere in the hundreds, I should think.

I'd add by way of personal observation--not as answer to you, since you seem to agree, but to the poster (s) who thinks every homosexual is recognizeable, either effeminate or "butch"...that of the dozens of homosexuals I"ve met who I knew were homosexuals, by far most of them did not display any of these "outing" behaviours.

given the statistics, you are just as likely to have met someone with hepatitis without knowing it as you are to have met a gay person without knowing it.
Click to expand...

And? How does that even faintly undermine my point?
 
Henrin said:
Nonsense. The right to life and the right to property of the unborn child conflicts with the right to property of the woman(the body in this case). If the woman were to act the other party would lose all their rights.

Btw, you know I'm not for outlawing abortion, right?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to turn this thread into another one of our abortion arguments... but it just jumped out at me.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
I'm sorry. I'm not trying to turn this thread into another one of our abortion arguments... but it just jumped out at me.
Click to expand...

I know. The involuntary servitude argument I don't think the pro-life side can get past. The rest of the arguments that pro-choice people have are pretty awful, but that one has it's merits.
 
OscarB63 said:
oh, I agree.... it was a joke. no actual slur was intended. just a play on the old "not all rectangles are squares, but all squares are rectangles"

In general, I think "gay" slurs are pointless and stupid. since there is nothing wrong with being gay...how can calling someone "gay" be an insult?
Click to expand...

Yeah. I didn't think you meant anything by it. Just caught me wrong, and I realized I couldn't quite reconcile my bad habit of calling hoplophobes and anti-war protestors "faggots" with my enthusiastic support for the Pink Pistols and the repeal of DADT. I suppose none of us is perfect.
 
Strucker said:
I'd add by way of personal observation--that of the dozens of homosexuals I"ve met who I knew were homosexuals, by far most of them did not display any of these "outing" behaviours.
Click to expand...

I have met, IIRC, only a dozen or so "confirmed" homosexuals and by far most of them were "obviously gay". not saying they were flaming flouncers but they had the stereotypical gay signs.

about the only person I have met that is gay that I know is gay who does not display any "outing" behaviors is the son of one of my wife's friends. He was actually in the Army and got put out on a medical discharge (back injury during Airborne training) back before DADT was repealed. Likes to hunt and fish. basically a good ole boy redneck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom