Haven, before I reply to your new question, answer this question please. Did the fully grown men kiss in the same scene in which the words "sucks" and "ass" were mentioned? This is important so I can put this all in context. ------------------
Rodney McCray: I would assume that those were separate clips. I'm not really sure though, since I didn't see any of this on TV . ------------------ Clutchcity.net... source for all your Rockets, Astros, political, music, humor, and Gordita news.
i'm not upset with him mentioning the 2 men kissing so much as him saying, "We're talking about low-brow, raunchy programming like 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer,' 'Boston Public' and 'Smackdown' being deliberately and directly aimed at children." how dare he call Buffy low-brow and raunchy? I bet he's never even the show. what the hell is joe lieberman doing with this moron? ------------------ [This message has been edited by outlaw (edited August 01, 2001).]
The majority of the time I have seen Joe Leiberman, he has been standing next to a moron. What is new? ------------------
Well, I think that your monicker is new, Mr. Rainey . ------------------ Clutchcity.net... source for all your Rockets, Astros, political, music, humor, and Gordita news.
not these parents: http://www.gaynet.com.au/news/story-213.htm why not let individual troops decide the issue on a local level? that seems to be the best compromise. ------------------
Number 1: Achebe and Rodney both need to let this one go. Rodney and I agreed to disagree but you two are taking the personal attacks to an ugly place. ENOUGH! Number 2: If you people can't see that there is some risk in forcing young men and homosexuals together, I think you are plain stupid. Don't make the mistake of confusing stupid with different. You make yourself look worse by calling us stupid for not agreeing with you, not the other way around. Number 3: The Kinsey Report you documented is interesting, but other studies have shown that 1 in 5 boys is molested before the age of 15, with over 90% of those being by men. Of those molested, the vast majority (some 80+%) were molested by a family member or friend over the age of 18 and STRAIGHT. These were NOT gay men, but straight men abusing boys. There is also an important point to be made about your study. If statistics are correct, only 8% or so of the population in America is gay or lesbian. If we can further extrapolate say 5% gay men, that means that 28% of gay men said they had sex with kids under 16. Doing the math, that means just over 1 percent of Americans have admitted to being gay and having sex with kids under 16. Since the number of scout leaders that were gay was probably smaller than the 8% percent seen nationally, I would think that percentage goes down even further. There is a better chance of your kid being eaten by a bear on a camping trip than being abused by a gay man if you want to look at the odds. Also, abuse is RARELY about sex. It is MOSTLY about control. Just as rape is not an act of sex but one of violence. It is very important not to confuse that issue because it opens the field to absuers from all walks of life, gay, straight, male and female. Number 4: Do your homework before you debate a subject. You have already lost, and the parents have won. According to the story, many parents feel they have lost by gay men not being allowed in the Boy Scouts. This is an issue that strikes to the heart of our culture and how we feel about gender and sexuality. For the first time in our history, a majority of America is ok with homosexuality and most of them know someone who is gay. Actually, all of us that are regulars to this board know someone - outlaw! As a parent, you should feel free to do whatever you feel is in the best interest of your child. Deciding the rest of us are naive idiots for not following your guidance, however, is pretty overblown. ------------------ Who's your buddy? Who's your pal? I am, aren't I?
You know, behind all the humor in Achebe's hounding Rodney McCray about pedophilia (and I thought it was very funny), he has a good point there. Why is it that people who are the most "normal" secretly believe that sexual deviancy is behind every corner, just lurking there to come and snatch our poor innocent children from us? I'd prefer to think that most people (straight, gay, or Nigerian) are basically decent and really don't want to rape our poor little children. Did you know that some airlines now do not allow unrelated men to sit next to children? I find this a little offensive myself. Suddenly I'm a likely pedophile because I'm male? That's silly. But it's also silly to think that for some reason homosexuals just can't control themselves around little boys. Just as it would be silly to assume that my mother (who was our Den leader) was having lascivous thoughts about all these 12 year olds. ------------------ Clutchcity.net... source for all your Rockets, Astros, political, music, humor, and Gordita news.
I can't help but wonder how many of you opposing the Scouts actually have children? I know that much of my political outlook changed when I had children-- the world changes when that occurs. You have no idea how precious a life is until it is one that you've created. Nurturing and protecting it becomes paramount. For every heartwarming anecdote there is the counterbalance of the Scoutmaster that took liberties with 15-20 young boys and got away with it for YEARS. Should you have to take the risk with your child? One other thing: blame the lawyers! ------------------ "How far you go in life depends on you being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak. Because someday you will have been all of these." [This message has been edited by RichRocket (edited August 01, 2001).]
If you people can't see that there is some risk in forcing young men and homosexuals together, I think you are plain stupid. Sometimes this board makes it extremly difficult to convey how much I despise intolerance and ignorance. Forcing young men and homosexuals together....Hmmmm. Guess what Rodney? My brother is gay. And just last weekend, I "forced" my 12 and 9 year old sons to stay at his house overnight. OMG!! What was I thinking???? Did he abuse them??? Are they scarred for life??? What should I do, Rodney?? Rodney, drag your intolerant mind out of the 1950's. Child molestation is a horrible act. But it is NOT done exclusely by gays, or because some are gay. If you came to my house, and your kids played with mine, and my brother showed up, what would you do? Would you immediately become nervous because your children are being "forced" to be in the company of a gay man, or would you take the time to get to know my brother and realize what a great man and kind human being he is? Open your eyes to the person, not the antiquated stereotypes you still live by. ------------------ A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory. [This message has been edited by Newbiehad (edited August 01, 2001).]
There's no love lost, I assumed you were an idiot all along. I still gave you the benefit of the doubt though hoping to hear some compelling argument. You disappointed me. The next time you quote something verbatim, please provide a link... it will put the actual numeric references in context. Again, you're an idiot. You danced around the issue of pedophilia for your first several posts. You pretended to be non-homophobic by citing that you wouldn't want your boys accessible to women either, bravo. I told you that my mother was a den-mother(did you not know of den-mothers???), so you dispense with the bull**** by citing a ton of references insinuating that homosexuals are pedophiles... indicative of your entire intuition all along I take it. Why did you dilly-dally? Bravo Rodney... you've shown us quantifiable numbers. We're finally in the realm of empirical data. Now, what do those numbers mean... aside from the obvious question what the numbers would be for heterosexuals (when I was 14 I got into precarious situations w/ my 24 year old redneck, married w/ 2 kids neighbor) the Deshawn Stevenson examples, etc., hell I'll even avoid the argument that most of Alfred Kinsey's sample gay population was already in psychological hospitals or prisons. Gee, criminals doing criminal things. Bravo. I have to ask, using an analogy mind you, what the relevance are of these numbers. My uncle one argued that b/c african-american men are more apt to commit crimes, etc. than the rest of the population that he is justified by locking the door whenever a black man walks by. That is... reaching for the lock and pushing down whenever a black man walks by. That's obviously racist. Whenever you make a conclusion of worthiness or habits for an entire group because of the infractions of a few individuals, they're doing the rest of the group an injustice. Likewise, your albeit belated inference that homosexuals are pedophiles b/c of a few statistics is unfair to the majority of the homosexual population. Who values the BSA? The homophobes? When I was homophobic, or better yet when these issues didn't gather attention (when the nice gay people just shot themselves or repressed their desires) the BSA was something to be proud of. It was a great symbol in our society. Now it's just representative of bigotry. The Mormon church had rules prohibiting African Americans until 1978. They maintained other harmful literature concerning blacks until a few years ago. How did they handle the dissension? How did they handle the criticism? They admitted they were wrong. They changed. They took it on the chin. When you take your errors in stride, no sane person is going to harp on all of your past mistakes. They'll let it go. When the LDS church admitted fault, they gained my respect. When the BSA moderates their views b/c of financial pressures or public criticism... we'll all write it off, we won't point at their coffers, we'll all applaud their actions. You'd better ****ing believe that the BSA will face challenges to get on federal facilities from now on. Noone expected anything more from Scalia et all concerning the BSA ruling, but he did pave the way for future challenges. Besides, did you not read the umpteen points that I made that the private/public issue wasn't truly my concern? I don't think the public/private label should protect any specific group. Why was Texaco in the wrong? Because they're a multi-national organization? Of course not... that just provided the means with which to punish them. I don't provide financial support to the BSA. I publicly criticize their homophobia. I'll be a tax payer in line demanding that they get off of my tax funded federal facility. Anytime you want to debate the morality of homophobia, let me know. Rest assured that though homophobia is permitted in the BSA, the BSA will face more and more public pressure on this issue. They will lose key financial support... in general, they'll have a **** of a time. My side hasn't lost. We're quite patient. ------------------ If he dies, he dies: Utah's Andre HarryBinko, after knocking down the Cavaliers Trajan Langdon.
LOL!!!! Achebe: Seriously, let it go, man. You've been around the board long enough to know it isn't cool to call people idiots even in retaliation. Neither of you is right or wrong. It is a difference of opinion. End of story. ------------------ Who's your buddy? Who's your pal? I am, aren't I?
I apologize Jeff. I hadn't read your post (installing msdn, the jdk, forte, jrun on my new box and typing that post at the same time). I apologize for allowing myself to rise to the calls of 'idiocy', etc. ------------------ If he dies, he dies: Utah's Andre HarryBinko, after knocking down the Cavaliers Trajan Langdon.
Well lookie here... http://www.nandotimes.com/nation/story/53909p-795581c.html Nation: Boston Boy Scouts council to allow gay leaders The Associated Press BOSTON (August 1, 2001 11:50 a.m. EDT) - Despite a ban against homosexuals dictated by the Boy Scouts' national headquarters, one of Massachusetts' largest councils will allow gay scoutmasters under a new "don't ask-don't tell" policy. "Discussions about sexual orientation do not have a place in Scouts," said Brock Bigsby, Scout executive for the Massachusetts Minuteman Council. "The Scouts will not inquire into a person's sexual history, and that person will not expose their sexual orientation one way or the other." The Minuteman Council, an umbrella organization of 330 Scout troops and 18,000 Boy Scouts in Greater Boston, approved the bylaw July 19. The policy also prohibits the exclusion of anyone on the basis of race or religion. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled the Boy Scouts of America may exclude gays from serving as troop leaders. Bigsby maintains the new bylaw is consistent with the national Boy Scouts' policy, since scout leaders would not be permitted to discuss their sexual orientation. Greg Shields, national spokesman for the Boy Scouts of America, did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment. A spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union said the Boston council may be the first in the country to draft an anti-discrimination policy within the framework of the Scouts' national bylaws. "To have a policy that takes sexual orientation off the table entirely instead of making homosexuality seem like a dirty little secret is encouraging and significant," Eric Ferrero of the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project told The Boston Globe. "And it sounds like what the group has done is going to be difficult for the National Boy Scouts to oppose." ------------------ I figure the odds be 50/50, I just might have something to say.
Then to be consistent, we should not have heterosexual women teachers or caregivers of minor males as well. Since such persons obviously can't control keep their natural tendencies towards adults from spilling over to exploiting children, this seems to be the crux of your argument, right? I guess we will have to divide up all potential leaders youth groups (caregivers, teachers, scout masters) into male and female heterosexuals and homosexuals, and be sure they only interact with those whose adult versions they have no physical, mental or spiritual attraction to. Oh sh**, but what then do we do with bisexuals??? As might be apparent, I don't think your view on this is logical or based in reality, but rather on a stereotype of gay men open about their sexual orientation as especially risky towards children beyond women or strait men or closeted gay men. Yes it does. I defend the right of the KKK to organize and speak, and many other of the groups you discuss including BSA too. I also support the rights of others to criticism such organizations as ethically bankrupt (KKK, neonazis) or at least seriously ethically misguided (perhaps BSA falls here). And I personally will try to use forums such as these to limit views consistent with such groups and their corrosive elements to a democracy where all its citizens are valued. But the minute governmental support is involved--such organizations have to abide by the laws to protect all in our land. And in practice this means answering to government policies like all business routinely do. Like it or not, it is government's role to protect its citizens from discrimination and exploitation and to ensure reparations are paid for misdeeds done to them. I think only an extreme anarchist would view otherwise (BTW I think having some anachrists is a healthy thing, I certainly think their presense is healthier for societal debates than reactionary militants, nativists and nationalists). The real thing again that gets lost in this is unsubstantied argument that discrimination about sexual orientation is OK (defensible) on the grounds it is about behavior. (Irregardless of whether genetics are involved in sexual orientation, I really don't think the genetics/choice issue should be big within the debate from either side). Sexual orienation is NOT about behavior, and many homosexuals do not engage in sexual behavior and most all do not engage in sexual behavior with minors--just as with others in the general population. I would think defining homosexual sexual orietation as homosexual sex acts would be as offensive to a homsexual as someone saying to me the only aspect of my relationship with my wife that characterizes our marrige is the sex. I am not discounting the latter as important, but that is my choice, and to say that there are no other important parts to our marrige is offensive. Further, many persons of all sexual orienations don't engage in sex acts at all for various reasons. If the BSA focused on behavior, like prohibiting scout leaders who have sexual relations outside of marrige and prohibiting their leaders from talking about sexual matters to their troop they might have a leg to stand on. I wouldn't support the former such a policy (the latter I might), but it might have had the desired effect within at least having a thread of ethical consistency and not targeting a single group base don a stereotype. But that is not what they did and the deserve all the heat they are getting until the change it. [This message has been edited by Desert Scar (edited August 01, 2001).]
So it seems that it's ok for you to tell him that he's wrong, but it's not ok for him to tell you that you're wrong? I don't understand - how is it that you can discriminate against the 'right wing Christians' and say that they aren't allowed to read their Bible, and at the same time say that they are not allowed to discriminate against you - doesn't seem very fair or consistent.... Of course you'll probably interpret my analysation of this thread as a personal attack on you.....
I think the paranoid title of this thread basically renders it to the realms of satire. <center>Homosexual conspiracy succeeding...</center> Like there is some sort of secret cabal of homosexual people, all with ID cards, meeting in secret behind the backs of fine, upstanding people like you, Mr. Rainey. Gay men are out to get you! They want to steal your vital bodily fluids! Better lock the doors! Hide! Shoot people with a lisp on site! Dude, seek help. If not from Clutchcity.net then from someone. The first step to a cure is admiting that you have a problem. Here is a link for you.
