Boy Scouts end ban on openly gay troop leaders

[PureX]

Mother Nature is not happy when her design is breeched.

You're couching your own groundless bias in advertising jargon, hoping that no one will notice it's meaninglessness.

Biological design has no claim to righteousness that I am aware of. As an example: it has deemed it necessary that life forms kill and eat each other for their own survival. This is inherently amoral, and in many ways profoundly self-contradictory. So appealing to some imaginary moral high ground as it's being expressed by the bodily functions of "Mother Nature" is absurd.

The question to you, now, is will you recognize and admit that this absurd, and let go of it, or will you just ignore reason completely and continue believing and making this absurd claim?

 

[bybee]

You're couching your own groundless bias in advertising jargon, hoping that no one will notice it's meaninglessness.

Biological design has no claim to righteousness that I am aware of. As an example: it has deemed it necessary that life forms kill and eat each other for their own survival. This is inherently amoral, and in many ways profoundly self-contradictory. So appealing to some imaginary moral high ground as it's being expressed by the bodily functions of "Mother Nature" is absurd.

The question to you, now, is will you recognize and admit that this absurd, and let go of it, or will you just ignore reason completely and continue believing and making this absurd claim?

I don't believe I mentioned morality you dipstick! I stated it is an unnatural use of the body. People are free to consent to any number of unnatural behaviors.
And that is not an unreasonable statement.

 

[Tambora]

There is an organization called "The Man Boy Love" or something to that equivalent..

NAMBLA
North American Man-Boy Love Association

 

[aikido7]

By allowing the BSA to still ban gay adults, it is making a religious exemption seem like a reasonable compromise--but it allows the very people who would discriminate to keep discriminating.

Republican presidential candidates should immediately come out in support of the policy and claim victory, because this is just the kind of policy that GOP presidential candidates (And Republicans in Congress) have been promoting as a way to keep the anti-LGBT base of the party energized.

 

[PureX]

I don't believe I mentioned morality you dipstick! I stated it is an unnatural use of the body. People are free to consent to any number of unnatural behaviors.
And that is not an unreasonable statement.

Stating that it is "unnatural" is meaningless unless you are implying that unnatural means 'wrong'. And be honest, we both know that's what you meant to imply in this instance.

But the truth is that humanity is profoundly "unnatural", in that we constantly seek and implement ways of abusing, controlling, and subverting nature. You might almost say it's what we do! Damming a river is "unnatural". Yet we and the beavers build them all the time. Doing so almost seems to come "naturally" to us. Flying in heavier-than-air machines is unnatural, and yet millions of us do it every day.

Point being that humanity is naturally, unnatural. So that claiming that humans engaging in "unnatural sex" is somehow inhuman, or unnatural, or wrong, just doesn't pan out logically. And that is what you were trying to claim, isn't it? That is what you believe. Right?

 

[Rusha]

Not in public school sex-ed programs.

Oh ... so you agree that NEITHER sex ed or abstinence only have a place in the public school system ... OR perhaps parents should be the allowed to decide if they wish to opt out.

 

[GFR7]

Oh ... so you agree that NEITHER sex ed or abstinence only have a place in the public school system ... OR perhaps parents should be the allowed to decide if they wish to opt out.

I think you missed my central point.

Let's try again:

Q said that homosexual sex is safer than hetero sex.

I wondered if a young male, considering sex with men, should be counseled that he's picked the safer route? Perhaps Mama and Papa ought to tell him this? atrol:

 

[bybee]

Stating that it is "unnatural" is meaningless unless you are implying that unnatural means 'wrong'. And be honest, we both know that's what you meant to imply in this instance.

But the truth is that humanity is profoundly "unnatural", in that we constantly seek and implement ways of abusing, controlling, and subverting nature. You might almost say it's what we do! Damming a river is "unnatural". Yet we and the beavers build them all the time. Doing so almost seems to come "naturally" to us. Flying in heavier-than-air machines is unnatural, and yet millions of us do it every day.

Point being that humanity is naturally, unnatural. So that claiming that humans engaging in "unnatural sex" is somehow inhuman, or unnatural, or wrong, just doesn't pan out logically. And that is what you were trying to claim, isn't it? That is what you believe. Right?

I believe it is an unnatural use of the body. I believe people are free to choose. To me it is unnatural. And it has physical consequences.
So what if other things are also unnatural. It is this specific act that we are addressing.
Humanity is gifted with the freedom of choice. We make good and bad choices.
I am not telling you what to believe or what to espouse.

 

[Rusha]

I think you missed my central point.

Your only point leads back to everything homosexual ...

Let's try again:

Q said that homosexual sex is safer than hetero sex.

It can be ... depending on the previous sexual history of the participants. Are you one of those who can't quite grasp the concept that two, disease-free homosexuals in a monogamous relationship are safer than two promiscuous heterosexuals in a relationship?

I wondered if a young male, considering sex with men, should be counseled that he's picked the safer route? Perhaps Mama and Papa ought to tell him this? atrol:

As long as both are disease free, that isn't true. Also, you seem to conveniently forget that heterosexual sex, depending on the participants, can be more deadly for an innocent, unborn baby should the mother/father decide to terminate the pregnancy.

 

[PureX]

I believe it is an unnatural use of the body. I believe people are free to choose. To me it is unnatural. And it has physical consequences.
So what if other things are also unnatural. It is this specific act that we are addressing.
Humanity is gifted with the freedom of choice. We make good and bad choices.
I am not telling you what to believe or what to espouse.

But you still think "unnatural" = "bad". Yet almost every food you eat is grown and prepared "unnaturally". Every machine and tool you use throughout the day is performing an "unnatural" task. And every instance of our indulging in "unnatural" behavior has physical, mental, and emotional consequences.

Almost everything we humans do is unnatural, anymore. And getting more-so every day. So I don't see how "unnaturalness" justifies your bias against homosexuality.

 

[jgarden]

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), is a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court, which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

The case was brought by Mildred Loving, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, who had been sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated the state's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which prohibited marriage between people classified as "white" and people classified as "colored". The Supreme Court's unanimous decision determined that this prohibition was unconstitutional, reversing Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

The decision was followed by an increase in interracial marriages in the U.S., and is remembered annually on Loving Day, June 12. It has been the subject of two movies, as well as several songs. Beginning in 2013, it was cited as precedent in U.S. federal court decisions holding restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States unconstitutional, including in the 2015 Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges.

Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States had been in place in certain states since before the United States declared independence. At the time that the decision was made, 16 states, all southern States, had such laws

..... In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which decided the issue, the Supreme Court invoked Loving, among other cases, as precedent for its holding that states are required to allow same-sex marriages under both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The court's decision in Obergefell cited Loving nearly a dozen times, and was based on the same principles – equality and an unenumerated right to marriage. During oral argument, the eventual author of the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy, noted that the decisions holding racial segregation and bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional (Brown v. Board of Education and Loving, respectively), were made about 13 years apart, much like the decision prohibiting bans on same-sex sexual activity (Lawrence v. Texas) and Obergefell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), a Supreme Court decision that declared laws prohibiting interracial marriage in 16 states as unconstitutional, is significant because it was mentioned almost a dozen times in its recent Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) decision that legalized "gay marriage."

Both decisions were based on the Court's interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.

Lawyers for the Boy Scouts probably advised their clients that any attempt to ban "gay" Scout leaders, after years of legal challenges and a financial drain on that organization's resources, would ultimately be declared unconstitutional.

 

[TracerBullet]

I differ from you. I have never claimed that "minorities" are unnatural or abnormal. I have claimed that homosexual practice is abnormal and unnatural, meaning outside the norm of behavior.

nice semantics

There is an organization called "The Man Boy Love" or something to that equivalent.
They absolutely groom boys for pederasty. Now, they shall have full access to Boy Scouts on camping trips and other outings.
So, I do feel there is cause for concern.

Yeah it's a Christian bogey man that conservatives haul out as a means of justifying their prejudices.

Let's pretend that this organization actually exists and is engaging in the activities that you "absolutely" know they do...

So we have a nationwide organization dedicated to the act and the defense of child sexual abuse. An organization continuously sexually abusing young children. How is this group escaping notice of the police? the FBI? Why are there no investigations into these horrendous criminal activities? Why NAMBLA never raided? Why are there no arrests much less charges being brought?

 

[Granite]

That NAMBLA is considered a pariah and remains ineffective--at best--is consistently lost on some people. The same sort of people who think Lyndon Larouche might have a real shot in '16.

 

[jgarden]

Where is the objective evidence to suggest that "gays" have any less self-control or are any more disposed to be pedophiles than their heterosexual counterparts?

 

[Granite]

Where is the objective evidence to suggest that "gays" have any less self-control or are any more disposed to be pedophiles than their heterosexual counterparts?

It's in the Hidden Evidence Room where you can prove Satanic Ritual Abuse.

 

[Delmar]

Gross.

Exactly!

 

[Delmar]

You, once again, make the mistake of thinking that pedophilia and homosexuality are the same thing.

you are running a bait and switch!

 

[Granite]

you are running a bait and switch!

It's useful to point out for the 12,000th time that they aren't the same thing at all. You guys just refuse to differentiate between any sexual behavior you consider out of line. Seems to all be the same to you.

 

[Quetzal]

you are running a bait and switch!

You do realize I didn't bring up that topic, therefore, I did not run anything. If you right wing nuts would stop making that ridiculous comparison we could all move on. But so long as your madness continues, it will need to be restated.

 

[Angel4Truth]

By allowing the BSA to still ban gay adults, it is making a religious exemption seem like a reasonable compromise--but it allows the very people who would discriminate to keep discriminating.

No it isnt - its been upheld by the supreme court that a private membership club can discriminate.

The boy scouts head leadership chose to allow this now from within, they have won many lawsuits in the past and its been upheld that they could deny based on gay.