The Gay Boy Scouts of America.

Aug 25 08:22 UTC 1999

  
     I saw a rather interesting piece on Dateline tonight. There is a man who
was kicked out of the Biy Scouts simply for being gay.  He was an Eagle Scout
and was even promoted to Asst Scoutmaster, but the org kicked him out because
of his gayness and because he might present a negative influence on the kids.
    Of course, my mother was there to lend her 2 cents, saying that they were
wrong in tossing out the gay dude, but when I asked her if that applied to
her grandkids, she went into bible mode and you know the name of that tune.
    I think the Boy Scouts should take him back. I mean, you cannot catch
gayness from anyone and I think that TV is much more of a bad influence than
someone being gay. It is also interesting to note that the creed of the Scouts
is to "defend the rights of all people" . They talk the talk, but apparently
gay people are not enough for them to walk the walk.

  So were they right, or wrong? I know most of you are friendly to the glb
agenda, so I don't expect much in the way of opposition.

response 2 of 85:

Aug 25 12:56 UTC 1999

I think I heard something about that... I thought the person had won his
court case and that the Boy Scouts had to take him back?  Or was that
someone else?  Personally I think it's silly to remove someone from an
organization like the Boy Scouts simply because of sexual preference.

response 4 of 85:

Aug 25 18:40 UTC 1999

I agree with everything Jazz said, especially the last paragraph.  Most of
the Boy Scout chapters in northern Michigan (like the one my brother attended)
are through a church or have church support.  So, their values are more
Christian, and I can see how they would kick someone out for being gay or
pagan.  If you look at the guidebooks and books they use to get badges, the
pictures and rules are very Leave-it-to-Beaver.  The boys are clean-cut, the
clothes are pressed and mended, and they use words like "young gentlemen".

Therefore, given that they live like it's 1956, they're going to act like it's
1956 and boot someone for being a girly scout.  (I couldn't resist that).

There are a couple of restaurant chains that have discriminated against gay
employees, and it's fairly legal.  (They're being fought in court, though)

response 6 of 85:

Aug 25 19:20 UTC 1999

(Yeah, whatever happened to that whole brouhaha?  It just kind of died out...)

Re#1:  It strikes me that, even if as many straights as gays are pedophiles,
a boy is more likely to be molested by a gay man than by a straight man.  I
imagine it strikes a lot of people the same way.  

response 8 of 85:

Aug 25 19:33 UTC 1999

#6> A boy is more likely to be molested by a gay man than a straight man. I
had the same sexist reaction though: Not all scoutmasters are male. Many, if
not the majority, of Cub Scout leaders are female, and not all pedophiles (by
a long shot) are male. So no, a boy is not necessarily more likely to be
molested by a gay pedophile than by a straight pedophile.

#1> I've never heard it claimed that children of gay parents are les slikely
to be gay than children of straight parents. I wouldn't think the sample size
is nearly large enough to "well-establish" such a claim.

response 10 of 85:

Aug 26 16:48 UTC 1999

 Re4
   There is nothing wrong with being clean-cut, and wearing pressed and mended
clothes. I've been know to be clean-cut and wear mended and pressed clothes
and still the tg self that I am. The only difference is that now today sexual
preference is an issue, but is something no one would even dare to inquire
about when I was a scout. 
   Who knows who lead us back then? Was my scout leader gay? Can't tell.
He was married, and I assume straight, but then again he could have been
having a gay affair or an affair with someone who wasn't his wife. Don't ask
don't tell. Besides we were kids and you know how much power they had in the
60's. Like less than none.
   But let's get back to the oath. A scout has to be a true friend of all
mankind; a defender of all people's rights. I think the word all makes it more
clear than anything else. Does the US Senate represent only some of the
people? Some would say yes, but I would like to think that they stand for what
I believe as well. Was Barney Frank tossed out for being gay? (I know Frank
is a congressman, so don't fix it). My point is, if being gay in Congress is
OK, then who the hell are the Boy Scouts in barring gay people?

   Some people like living in 1956. My mother is anticipating it's arrival
along with the new DeSotos and Studebakers.

response 12 of 85:

Aug 26 21:31 UTC 1999

Omni - I didn't say there was anything *wrong* with living as if it's 1956.
I used their way of living to back up their reasoning for dismissing the
leader.  Different ballpark, darlin'.

response 14 of 85:

Aug 27 06:04 UTC 1999

 I agree there is nothing wrong with living in 1956, but if you do, please
don't tell me how to live my life. My mother is comfortable with gay people
just as long as they are not gay around her. She is in complete denial about
so many things that it is sometimes hard to talk to her. 
 In doing barring gays, they are creating a schism that will only be harmful
to the future of American children. We should be helping gay teens through
this time in thier lives instead of further rejection.

response 16 of 85:

Aug 27 11:34 UTC 1999

#13> Not if you're making "well-established' claims about significance. In
that case, the only fair comparison is people who grew up only knowing two
parents who were gay vs. people who grew up only knowing two parents who were
straight. If you're making the claim that children who have been exposed to
homosexual adults are no more or less likely to be gay themselves than
children who haven't, then that's a different claim, but I understood John
to be saying that children with gay parents are less likely to be gay than
children with straight parents... for such a claim, you have to remove from
the sample all cases of children with at least one straight parent AND at
least one gay parent. (Parents throughout referring to parent-figure, not
necessarily biological parent.)

response 18 of 85:

Aug 27 20:05 UTC 1999

Well, if it included those kids, then (a) sure there's a significant sample
size and (b) the results don't demonstrate anything except that homosexuality
isn't contagious, which is the initial point and that I wasn't questioning.
I was questioning the *lower* likelihood of gay parents to produce gay
children... and I think I've already argued ad nauseum that statistics which
include anything other than teens whose only parent figures are gay would be
insufficient to make such a claim.

response 20 of 85:

Aug 27 21:01 UTC 1999

<snort>

response 22 of 85:

Aug 28 02:41 UTC 1999

Bucko Rogers in the 25th Century
*stands proud*

response 24 of 85:

Aug 29 15:33 UTC 1999

a couple of things:

in the cracker barrel case, the fired employees could not fight their
dismissals in court.  there is no federal law against discriminating on
the basis of sexual orientation, and cracker barrel's headquarters are
in a state which has no such law as well.  the reason the matter faded
away was because the fired employess had no legal recourse.  aamof, in
most cases involving discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,
don't believe anyone who tells you it's being fought in court.  in the
vast majority of such incidents, there are no legal legs on which to
stand.

secondly, the charges against the company which owns red lobster and
olive garden were an urban myth.

finally, the boy scouts are nothing more than a sterling example of the
hypocrisy our society so often teaches under the guise of virtue.