|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 174 responses total. |
flem
|
|
response 143 of 174:
|
Nov 21 16:10 UTC 2000 |
I don't konw about y'all, but I had to go back and read #141 slowly, after
skimming it and running across the phrase "the Supreme Court is A GAY
ORGANIZATION!" :)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 144 of 174:
|
Nov 21 22:08 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
janc
|
|
response 145 of 174:
|
Nov 22 06:31 UTC 2000 |
I agree with the supreme court's ruling on the BSA thing - they should be
allowed to pick their own leaders by whatever criteria they choose. However,
the criteria that they do, in fact, choose to use greatly diminishes them in
my opinion. I'm not surprised that there are at least some gays who feel the
same way.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 146 of 174:
|
Nov 22 07:18 UTC 2000 |
I think a gay male who is a 'manly man' and didn't agendize or
politicize and agreed with and lived up to the BSA standards would make
a fine scoutmaster and I doubt anyone would notice or care. I think
anyone gay, straight, commie, or democrat who attempts to propagandize
or politisize the BSA is inappropriate as a scoutmaster.
I think that a liberal democrat who thinks chicken is manufactured in a
factory under sanitary conditions is inappropriate as a scoutmaster. I
think anyone who cannot 'buy into' the BSA thingy and agree to play its
game by its rules is inappropriate as a scoutmaster.
I think anyone that doesn't look at the BSA organization with all its
rules and ritual as sort of a typical poofy british S&M bondage sort of
thingy is rather oblivious or humor impaired. But, and irregardless,
and nontheless, the BSA is in fact a fine organization and one that
ought to be encouraged and supported as a socializing mechanism for the
'little savages'.
re#145: No offense, but some how you never struck me as the BSA, get out
into the wilderness, get stinky, eat off an open fire, and shit in a
hole dug in the ground type.
|
brighn
|
|
response 147 of 174:
|
Nov 22 17:45 UTC 2000 |
The BSA is propogandizing. why should their scoutmasters be any different?
Look, it's simple. they're a private organization. They are base don "role
modelling" for boys. They should be allowed to set thier criteria for "role
modelling" however they please, and any other private organizations that
choose not to associate with them because of those criteria have that option
as well.
In this regard, they're really no different than an individual. Individuals
may express themselves however they please (with the exceptions of lying in
certain contexts). Other individuals may choose to associate with whomever
they please. None of this is the government's business.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 148 of 174:
|
Nov 22 18:01 UTC 2000 |
I'm sure it was just an accidental oversight, but bdh3 left out
republicans and even conservative republicans from his list of evil
characters, in #146.
Of course the BSA can make any rules they want. So can communist cells,
militias, the KKK, churches, country clubs, etc - just so long as they
do not get free public support. They should certainly be able to rent
public facilities, too. I very much regret the agendas of such insular
cliques, but we are still a backward society in many ways. Freedom of
thought and expression should be allowed everyone, but education and
culture should help most people see through the stupidity of others.
|
brighn
|
|
response 149 of 174:
|
Nov 22 18:08 UTC 2000 |
Exactly. I was disturbed that, when the KKK held rallies in AA and Lansing
a decade or so ago, liberal protesters threw rocks and other objects at them,
and shouted to silence them.
they have the constitutional and innate right to moronic opinions, and to
express them peacably.
|
jor
|
|
response 150 of 174:
|
Nov 22 18:55 UTC 2000 |
I wish I knew more about politics, so it would so easy
to lump people into groups like "liberal" and
"conservative".
|
mcnally
|
|
response 151 of 174:
|
Nov 22 21:23 UTC 2000 |
I find it amusingly true to form that Rane chastises Brian's omission
of Republicans and conservatives from the list in #146, then proceeds
to place "churches" in a list right after "communist cells, militias,
and the KKK" in what is an even more biased list except that in this
case it conforms to Rane's biases (or would if Rane had biases.. Sorry,
it's sometimes hard for me to remember that Rane is perfectly objective
and consistently scientific in all of his opinions. In fact it's probably
not even fair to call them opinions, as they are clearly objective fact...)
I wish I could conclude that it was Rane's attempt at subtle irony, but
subtlety is not a trait I associate with Rane..
|
mcnally
|
|
response 152 of 174:
|
Nov 22 23:12 UTC 2000 |
(and yes, no need to point out that #151 isn't exactly subtle, either..)
|
brighn
|
|
response 153 of 174:
|
Nov 23 00:18 UTC 2000 |
jor> You're suggesting they were conservative protestors?
I wish people could have a mature conversation without getting all het up
about telling other people which words they can or can't use when. I'm not
gonna get my wish either, jor.
|
jor
|
|
response 154 of 174:
|
Nov 23 16:17 UTC 2000 |
I would never suggest that anyone is "conservative",
and I'm not all het up, and I would never tell someone
which words to use, but I might ask you to define them.
But what I really question, is why you assume people
have a clear idea of your definition, when it seems so
unclear.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 155 of 174:
|
Nov 23 18:37 UTC 2000 |
Re #151: there was no significance to the order in which I listed types of
organizations that discriminate. Those were the first discriminatory
organizations that came to mind, which might or might not be a subtle
reflection of some biases I have, but still, it is an objective list of
discriminatory organizations. If you want to add more and reorganize the
order, please be my guest.
|
janc
|
|
response 156 of 174:
|
Nov 24 06:33 UTC 2000 |
>re#145: No offense, but some how you never struck me as the BSA, get out
>into the wilderness, get stinky, eat off an open fire, and shit in a
>hole dug in the ground type.
Well, you're 1/4 right. The macho outdoorsman trip leaves me pretty cold.
However, I've done a mess of camping and hiking, mostly alone. One of the
years I was in Texas I spent more than one night in eight in my tent instead
of my apartment. I prefer to cook on a white gas stove rather than an open
fire, because fires seem to me to be a communal thing, and I've usually been
alone. If I can find enough public showers and swimable lakes and rivers to
keep from getting all that stinky, that's fine with me. And though I've
done plenty of holes, I prefer toilets. Though working a burn crew is a much
more effective way to get stinky than any camping trip I've been on.
|
lk
|
|
response 157 of 174:
|
Dec 12 21:19 UTC 2000 |
I must awaken this item and comment on brighn's text in #139:
"positive gay role models will indeed increase propensity towards
homosexuality, just as negative heterosexual role models will."
Hmmm, who comprises a "negative heterosexual role model"? Richard Nixon?
Jessie Jackson? Bobby Riggs? A serial rapist? A father who molests his
daughter? The problem here is that bad people who are heterosexual
are not categorized as bad heterosexuals. They might be bad Republicans
or liberals or bad tennis players or just bad people. Their sexual
orientation is largely irrelevant. But let a person be homosexual, and
their entire identity is subsumed into this one trait. Such is the way
of stereotypes and discrimination -- as exemplified by the Boy Scouts.
I've never met a homosexual who was somehow converted by the actions
of a negative heterosexual role model role model (the stereotype that
homosexuals were molested as children is false).
Is a child exposed to homosexuals (as positive role models) more likely
to become homosexual? Despite the environmental factor, there is no evidence
to support this (most environmental factors are at a young enough age
that this isn't likely). What is likely is that a gay teen will come out
and identify as gay if s/he has positive gay role models.
It follows that to reduce the chances of children coming out as homosexual,
society should stuff homosexuality into a closet and throw away the key.
Why not just ban homosexual content from books, newspapers and TV? Make gay
groups illegal (some public schools have go to extraordinary lengths to do
so). Heck, we round-up homosexuals and put them in concentration camps!
All this just to ensure that Johnny never hears about homosexuality.
Or at least never hears anything other than negative and false stereotypes
about homosexuals.
This way when Johnny makes it to high school and realizes that he's not
like his peers, that he's like those awful homosexuals about whom he's
heard nothing but terrible things, he can take daddy's gun and blow out
his brains.
This response is dedicated to the memory of Michael, a wonderful kid at
a summer camp where I worked, who took his own life nearly 17 years ago
during the Reagan years. A Reagan Whitehouse commissioned study (confirmed
by a follow-up study under the Bush administration) would later reveal
that 30% of teen suicide attempts were by gay teens who were uncomfortable
with their sexual orientation. One can conclude that confused gay teens
account for 5-54 times as many suicide attempts as would be expected.
|
aaron
|
|
response 158 of 174:
|
Dec 13 01:04 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
aaron
|
|
response 159 of 174:
|
Dec 13 01:14 UTC 2000 |
I am aware of studies which show that the rate of suicide *attempts* among
homosexual teens may be as high as 30% (e.g., G. Remafedi, J. Farrow,
Risk Factors for Attempted Suicide in Gay and Bisexual Youth, 87
Pediatrics 869-871 (1991)), and very recently, D. Kaplan, et al, Suicide
and Suicide Attempts in Adolescents 105 Pediatrics 871-874 (2000) (A
statewide survey of students in grades 7 through 12 found that 28.1% of
bisexual and homosexual males and 20.5% of bisexual and homosexual females
had reported attempting suicide.))
However, from a psychological standpoint, there is an enormous difference
between a suicide attempt and a completed suicide. The more attempts a
person survives, the less likely they are to succeed (save by accident).
Most people who want to commit suicide succeed on their first attempt, and
very few survive the second.
I am not aware of any studies which indicate that 30% of all teen suicide
attempts are by gay teens, although Leeron may have misspoken. The
baseline suicide attempt rate is 5% for boys and 13% for girls, with 2.7%
of attempts requiring medical treatment for the attempt. The suicide
attempt rate for gay teens is generally considered to be three times that
of heterosexual teens. (See Remafedi, supra, Remafedi G., Adolescent
homosexuality: Psychosocial and medical implications. 79 Pediatrics
331-337 (1987)).
|
happyboy
|
|
response 160 of 174:
|
Dec 13 12:45 UTC 2000 |
what are the suicide stats for native youth these days?
inner city children?
|
lk
|
|
response 161 of 174:
|
Dec 13 18:33 UTC 2000 |
The point of #157 was not to delve into suicide. It was to point out
that attempted suicide rates among gay teens are disproportionately
high. This is undoubtedly a result of social ostracization and
discriminatory policies such as the BSA's exclusion of homosexuals
regardless of their qualifications.
More specifically my point was that since it is impossible to keep
homosexuality a "secret" from children, and since it is likely that
children who are homosexual will ultimately discover their true self,
it would be wiser for the BSA to provide them with positive gay role
models than to make children fear that they are freaks of nature,
making their lives miserable and them more prone to attempt suicide.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 162 of 174:
|
Dec 13 19:05 UTC 2000 |
If you want to establish an organization that has a priority to provide boys
with positive homosexual role models, feel free to do so.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 163 of 174:
|
Dec 13 20:20 UTC 2000 |
Would it necessarily have to be a 'priority'?
|
lk
|
|
response 164 of 174:
|
Dec 13 23:06 UTC 2000 |
First, as mooncat says, it needn't be a "priority". But if the BSA
does have the best interests of ALL the children, then perhaps they
shouldn't make it a priority to discriminate against homosexuals.
Taking a step back, I can see that Kevin fell into the trap I previously
mentioned. No one is asking the BSA to provide "positive homosexual role
models", just as they don't provide "positive heterosexual role models".
The BSA should provide positive role models, period -- without regard for
their sexual orientation.
|
aaron
|
|
response 165 of 174:
|
Dec 13 23:23 UTC 2000 |
re #160: The suicide rate is positively correlated with diagnosed mental
illness, drug use, and alcohol use. Diagnosed mental illness is
the best predictor - about 50% of teens who attempt suicide are
already receiving counseling. (Many, however, are only in
counseling because of a prior suicide attempt.)
|
albaugh
|
|
response 166 of 174:
|
Dec 14 20:28 UTC 2000 |
> 'the BSA ... don't provide "positive heterosexual role models"'
Well, the BSA would beg to differ. The BSA certainly intends that its leaders
are positive role models, specifically - to be assumed - heterosexual.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 167 of 174:
|
Dec 14 21:25 UTC 2000 |
It is interesting how people, and even groups, can perpetually have sex on
their minds while continually denying that they have sex on their minds.
|