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.

85 responses total.

        There's no more chance of a gay man being a pedophile than a straight
man;  the general phobia of one's children being molested is completely
unfounded and based in ignorance.

        Insofar as teaching a lifestyle goes, I believe it's well-established
that children of gay parents are less likely to be gay than children of
straight parents;  I can only assume the current divorce rate has something
to do with that.  Of course, that assumes you don't buy the currently
Politically Correct but Scientifically Weak "Gay Gene" theory.

        The only remaining objection that I can think of is the organization's
standards for, and requirements for, it's employees.  The Boy Scouts strike
me as a fairly conservative organization, and it's not really surprising that
they have conservative values.  Currently it's legal in many states to
discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and therefore it's a legally
permissible act to dismiss someone from the Scouts because they're homosexual;
I don't think there's any debate as to whether it's prejudicial or not.

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.

   Speaking from experience, I don't think I would've cared if my Scout leader
turned out to be gay, but then again, back when I was in Scouts this wasn't
an issue. I can tell you that there was a lot more immorality going on at the
executive level than there was at the level where I was at. I remember one
of my dad's scout frineds constantly hitting on my mother, and he was married.

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)

        Cracker Barrel can lick my knob.

        Insofar as I know, the charges against Red Lobster in Ann Arbor are
ungrounded.

(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.  

Yeah, it was the corporation that owns Red Lobster and Olive Garden, but I
never go there anyway since they're so expensive.  Crackel Barrel has good
food, but there's always an hour wait.  The nonsense with the gay employees
was the final straw.

#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.

        
        Yeesh, at the most conservative estimate of the homosexual population
of the US, there's a large enough sample size to pass most chi-square tests
to any number of decimal places.  I don't have the survey on me, but I'd
assume that they used reasonable methodology unless given reason to believe
otherwise.

 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.

Most conservative estimate of homosexual population> about 0.5%. Let's go with
1%, for the sake of argument.
Now, that's not really the issue. The issue is, what percent of THEM have
children? We have two categories:
(a) Bisexuals or "acting hets" who later outed and now life as gays. They have
natural born children from a previous relationship. Unless they're widowed,
the other (no longer SO) parent is still around, and probably in the picture.
(b) Gays who adopted or (in the case of lesbians) artificially inseminated
(or spent a blind drunk night with a guy just to get pregnant). In the former
case, the children aren't biologically related (usually... maybe their parents
died, and were the siblings of their new parents). Furthermore, in the case
of adoption, in most cases, the child has spent some portion of their sexually
formative first years in a different environment.

So what's our sample size? Lesbian couples who artifically inseminated and
gay couples (male or female) who adopted newborns... MORE THAN 12 years ago.
You're going to tell me that there's a statistically significant sample of
adults in the United States that have been in monogamous, homosexual
relationships for more than 12 years, and have a 12-year-old or older that
has known that couple as their only parents since shortly after birth?

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'.

Re#11: Jazz (back in #1) was talking about "teaching a lifestyle", so the
issue should be people who had gay parent-figures, not people who had gay
parents.  Shouldn't you be counting adopted children too?  

 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.

Would be nice, but we all know we're a long way from that.  We also need to
help other kids with other problems.  It'll happen...  Look how far we've come
since 1956.  <shrug>

#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.)

        Allright, bucko, I'm just going to have to drag up the reference, and
yes, it did include adopted children and the children of gay parents who had
previously been involved in straight relationships with children, if I recall
correctly.  But I'll see when I dig it up.

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.

oh, and my name isn't bucko =} it's brighn. Mr. Kershaw if you're nasty.
;}

<snort>

(I suppose Mr. "Bucko" Kershaw wouldn't do at all, would it?....>

Bucko Rogers in the 25th Century
*stands proud*

        No, I capatalize first names of people when I'm calling them by name,
bucko. :)

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. 

        I have to take exception to that last statement;  by YOUR standards
of virtue - and mine - the Boy Scouts teach certain things that are quite
unvirtuous.  But their tachings are reasonably internally consistent.  Now,
if homosexual Scout leaders taught homophobia, that'd be hypocrisy.

not at all.  one of the things the boy scouts drill home is that in
order to be considered acceptable, you have to at least appear to meet
certain criteria.  therefore, if you claim to meet those criteria in
public yet practice something entirely different in private, that's
hypocrisy.  whether they were ever boy scouts or not, j. edgar hoover
and roy m. cohn are perfect examples of what i'm talking about.

I tend to agree with John. I think the Boy Scouts are merely "differently
virtued."

As to "no leg to stand on," I'm curious if the religious issue has ever been
raised in re: sexual orientation. By *my* religion, homosexuality is not a
sin, and, in fact, the practice of homosexuality between consenting adultscan
be a religious celebration. Ergo, it seems to me that the First Amendment
could apply to *pagan* (but not Christian) homosexuals. But I don't know if
this tack has ever been tried, or how successful it would be.

        Not really all that likely;  you could then claim the right to commit
muder as a Satanist.

My impression is that the State has to show some fairly compelling 
public interest where it wants to restrict religion...not very hard
in the case of murder.  Using otherwise illegal mind-altering drugs
may be legal in the context of a religious ceremony if you can show
that it's an important and well-established tradition in a can't-
argue-that-its-purpose-is-to-dodge-drug-laws religion.  

If you were a devoted member of some centuries-old religion that had
important roles/ceremonies/whatever that were quite specific to homo/
bi/trans people, you probably could get away with this in court.  But 
for 'most everyone out in the real world, it's about like woman trying 
to vote in 1825.  

I would like to see some religion-angle runs taken at this issue.  A
well-managed loss in court would still be a victory for the cause. 

the Religious Freedoms Restoration Act does indeed place the onus on the
government, not the individual, to demonstrate (roughly speaking) that a law
which violates the religious beliefs of a particular religion must satisfy
the following:
(a) there is no way to write the law such that it is enforceable and yet
doesn't violate the religious beliefs
(b) the law is in the best interest of society at large
(there's a third condition, as well, but these'll do, since I can't remember
it =} )

Laws against murder are clearly in the best interest of societyat large, and
it would be pretty damned hard to write a loophole for Satanism. for one
thing, murder in general would still be illegal, but language that would
permit human sacrifice of willing victims would get caught up in suicide and
assisted suicide law.

Laws against homosexuality may be in the interest of society at large (such
things are usually written off as "decency" issues, which are determined at
the local level, not the state or federal level), but it's not clear to me
that laws against homosexulaity couldn't allow for differences of belief...
since the "best interest" clause would really only apply to *public* displays,
it WOULD be possible to right a law that discriminates minimally on the basis
of religion while preserving the social interest.

I'm assuming #28 was another of John's "Devil's Advocate" posts, and not a
serious comment. that slippery slope bullshit is just that... bullshit.
Homosexuality is not murder, nor is it pedophilia. homosexuals can have
completely private, consensual interactions, while murderers and pedophiles
can't (at lest, under social assumptions that a healthy individual who wants
to die is mentally incapacitated and hence incapable of consent, and minors
are likewise incapable of consent).

        No, it isn't.  Consider the issue from the perspective of those who
wish to make homosexuality illegal - it is as threatening to their sexuality,
or moreso - than the average willing sacrifice of a Satanist ritual, but both
involve reprehensble philosophies.

Hm. you hadn't specified that the victim was willing before. All the same,
I think I accounted for that.

All right, I'll look at it from the perspective of the religious
fundamentalist. In the case of a Satanic sacrifice involving a willing victim,
the victim is de facto committing suicide. Suicide is a singularly particular
sin: The suicide cannot repent, or otherwise change their mind. They have
committed a sin (they have killed someone, namely themselves), and they cannot
later turn to God. Many faiths -- including Catholics, most notably -- refuse
to let suicides be buried in the "consecrated" part of the cemetary.

In the case of homosexuality, there's a sin and a perversion, but the person
may ultimately turn to Jesus and repent. I'm not aware of any faiths that
refuse to bury gays in the "consecrated" part of the cemetary.

So, even from that perspective, the argument is bullshit.

        That's not the perspective I'm speaking of;  there are Christians that
believe that suicide under certain circumstances is even noble, but that
homosexuality is particularly grievous.

*blink* I've never heard that perspective, except about martyrs, and Satanic
sacrifices certainly aren't martyrs. And I haven't heard the martyr
perspective as being actively Christian for a few hundred years.

Maybe you're just grasping at straws...

        No, I think it's an Ivory-Tower/Non-Ivory-Tower thing, but as such,
it's difficult to validate my experiences with homophobic Christians.  Most
of whom are entirely behind many different types of sanctioned murder and
advocate violence as a solution to many problems, and yet are willing to call
up every Biblical quote in the book to defend their homohpobia.  If you
haven't run into them, I'm surprised, but I can't statistically prove their
significance.

Hm. I think I see your point now. You're pointing out that there are those
who sanction murder under some circumstances but homosexuality under no
circumstances, and that therefore in their eyes a ritual murder (being a form
of murder) would be more acceptabel than ritual homosexuality... is that
correct?

If so, I understand your point, but disagree with its relevance here.
And maybe that's a good spot to end the thread. =}

        Honestly, I believe most of America is like that - they accept killing
through wartime action and do not accept homosexuality.

Um, actually, most of America ALSO accepts homosexuality in certain
circumstances... it's well-known (and tolerated) that homosexual *behavior*
takes place in any situation where men are alone and isolatefd for prolonged
periods of time (i.e., prison, the military... DESPITE the military's official
policies to the contrary)

        I'm not sure that the public perception of homosexual rape inside of
prison is what I'd call an acceptance or tolerace of homosexuality in certain
circumstances - in many cases it seems to be regarded as an added aspect of
punishment.  Sadomasochism - at least in an overt form - isn't accepted
either, yet there is an understanding of it's existence and a reasonable
amount of tolerance so long as it remains in closeted fringes. 

        Only truly heinous behaviour, such as child molestation, rape, or
sexual violence, is not accepted by the public at some level and some form.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss