Boy Scouts of America Opt to Destroy Themselves

What a shame. Had a feeling they would cave. I have no idea how much pressure the gay mafia put on these voting members, but it had to be pretty intense.
The scouts, their traditions and all the wonderful things they've done for kids is done, over, caput just because a tiny, tiny, group of powerful radical gay agenda supporters targeted them. It's really sad. But that's the new norm..."evolve" or be targeted...period.

 

That's not particularly original of you. Ignoring the points I made - instead picking points that make the thought process appear flawed - is not a new argument.

However, accusing me of creating a strawman to support my argument is not only false, it is also a patently false strawman argument. THAT is creative, my friend: Strawman-ing a strawman in a mysterious previous post that does not exist that supports a later post (which doesn't doesn't even contain the supposed Strawman) is so convoluted... wait, you're not entirely rational, are you? That's alright, I'm genuinely fascinated by irrationality on occasion. It's fun to go nutso once in a while.
As far as defining the term "natural".... how many effing times do I need to do this? AT LEAST THREE IN THIS VERY THREAD. If I have to define a basic concept YET AGAIN so that it can be ignored ONCE AGAIN I might have an aneurysm.

 

Let me show you how it is really done.

a)

.
Actually that is not true. There are effeminate gays but there are plenty of burly He-man gays.

.
Except the most gay people I know who raise children have straight friends who are close to the family. Besides this argument is not even true. It is a fiction.

No but we can explain that more to you later when I can figure out how to put charts up on here.

While that is not the reason for higher HIV rates in homosexuals you understand that a large number of heterosexuals engage in anal sex as well. Oh and lesbian sex has been shown to have the least risk of HIV so...........


b)

Not all things in nature that are natural have a purpose.

?
Irrelevant questions.

You can't know that for sure. But still not relevant

I hope you warmed up before that stretch. Yes humans have evolved beyond certain animalistic behaviors. But that does not make anything you don't like unnatural.

It is not unnatural and that would not make it immoral. Dying one's hair is not natural do you think it is immoral? Shaving? Cutting your hair? Surgery? Seriously http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-14th-Edition-Irving/dp/0205820379 buy this book

We can tell by your post you are struggling.

It can, but it does vary from culture to culture.

No it is not. In fact the universe itself is amoral.

What?

You could you choose not to. But here is the thing. People are born with a set of stimulus response pathways in their brain and they develop more over time. For many the sight of a member of the opposite sex and their mannerisms and even smell is a sexual turn-on. Culture help define what is attractive in general but what attracts an individual is fairly hardwired and strikingly similar between different people. Some aspects are found to vary, size, hair color, breasts, voice, intellect all can play a role, but the bottom line there is a hardwired set of stimuli that create a response that is sexual. We know this is hardwired because we don't have to choose what makes us aroused. The same is true of homosexuals. Unless you can tell me how you chose to be heterosexual and if that choice can be changed for the right person.

Love is a social construct that labels that arousal with feelings. That fact that when you look into the eyes of the object of your affection you have an autonomic response that you connect to that person. (by the way that is how some ancient love potions worked but of course when the potions stimulant effect wore off....so did the love). That response is called love and we see that in hetero and homosexuals alike. It is all about nature and natural response.

 

I have a question for all the cork sackers in the audience.

Are gay guys going to do to the Boy Scouts what they did to the Catholic Church's male clergy?

 

Don't kid yourself, men weren't the only ones pressuring the scouts.

 

You nailed it. If they can force a Pope to abdicate, they can easily twist the arms of the BSA leadership behind their backs.

Hey all you people outraged suddenly about gays taking over and wreaking havoc....visit this thread and see if you can't predict what will happen to this sudden increase with all the new advances gays are making towards pushing their lifestyles on children, or modeling them [with society's stamp of approval] as "normal"...

And FYI, "someone" here at PF butchered the original thread and tried to make the poll go away when overwhelming numbers were making them uncomfortable.

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...ys-ages-13-29-getting-hiv-last-7-years-8.html

 

What you posted was a whole heap of rationalization and moral relativity.

In essence you just posted that whatever you approve of is moral- and what you don't is not.

- - - Updated - - -

I think you nailed it- the Gay Cabal is capable of anything.....frankly I am amazed that the Gay Cabal even allows any websites to still exist that allow posts like yours.....lol...

gay on the brain.......gay on the brain...

 

The statement was part of a narrative which clearly demonstrated the position of inappropriateness of discussion or focus on sex or sexuality among the SCOUTS. I went on to say it is not fit for polite public discussion. The stated rules for JOINING have nothing to do with the conversations of those who agreed to them and joined.

Let me make it simpler for you... as you seem to have a disconnect here.

Because I say "You cannot work here if you take drugs." does not mean that my company focuses on illicit drug use... it means that you agree not to do drugs while in my employ. To assert that the scouts focus on sex, or that my company focuses on illicit drug use... is utterly absurd and divorced from reason. Is that clear, or do you need more examples?

 

For the obvious reason. It isn't proven to be genetic. Go ahead cite all the junk science studies and I'll destroy each one

I don't make up my own definitions

Read them all here:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural

So is cannibalism, ambushes, murder, etc. How does that make any of that natural or worthy of citing for marriage basis?

 

No, I'm not going to play those kind of games. I've provided documentation throughout the thread, you have not. You can go to my links, choose which terms you want and place them into as many boxes as you like. Games like this do not overshadow your failing argument. Quite frankly that kind of kindergarten bullcrap is insulting.

Ive made an argument, and documented it with links and sources. You've made a counter argument, offering none of that wrapped in a shell of "Dont hold me accountable because I claim ignorance" If you are ignorant on the subject, then why keep offering this weak rebuttal? Perhaps if you read the links provided, and actually gave some thought to the observations ive presented you wouldnt have to fall back on ignorance as an excuse.

I make conclusions based upon the evidence at hand and at times the lack of evidence available from the other side.

This isn't grammar school....lets not try that kind of sideshow. Yes, I do.

But thats just it...there is evidence that heterosexuality is a hardwired trait. All animals have shown a desire to reproduce by virtue of them being here at all. Thats Heterosexuality. EVERY species demonstrates this...while small subsets of some animals may from time to time demonstrate a homosexual trait. Back to my original point of animals being dumb....this hardwiring is observable from the smallest to the largest creatures. They all simply know how to, and seek to reproduce. That IS evidence. Now small subsets of any species may display some Homosexual behaviors...but this is not to be construed as the same as Human homosexuality at all. The human animal is very different.

More evidence is easilly observable by the Straight man who turns Gay scenario. There is 0 evidence to suggest Gay is hardwired into anyone.

Either way...perhaps it's best we just agree to disagree.

 

time to earn my IDGAF badge

 

This is the leader of the anti-gay scout movement: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/05/2...d-be-better-than-inclusion-in-the-boy-scouts/

 

GBSA and add warning to be verbally read to every kid whose parent attempts to neglect their child by intentionally putting them in harms way. Girls and boys sleeping together would be much better. So straight kids will be lusted after and likely secretly molested by gay kids. This is condoning institutional pedophelia and molestation. Nuts. Sue BSA often and everywhere.

 

I do not condone or agree with his forced drowning comment, but his latter tweet is 100% correct IMO.

"He later tweeted: “A homosexual does not belong in the same tent with young boys any more than a man belongs in a tent full of Girl Scouts.”"

 

again

crimes committed by blacks with LEGALLY................did you miss the word I typed several times.........LEGALLY obtained guns

and compare that with crimes committed by all other races with LEGALLY.............LEGALLY ......LEGALLY obtained guns.

If you are an honest person you will see that your attempt to comparison can only be made if you use what I cite. Otherwise, you would be taking guns from people who aren't committing the crimes. But, enough of your strawman

 

Oh, where to begin... who knew it was possible to be both over- and underwhelmed at the same time?
Yes, more gay men are effeminate than straight men. This is not conjecture.

What do straight friends have to do with anything? A father figure (with masculine tendencies) and a mother figure (with feminine tendencies) has been implicated in studies as being more healthy than other family formats. However, I was referring to society in general. Men are the primary warriors of a nation for a reason - psychologically and physically, they are designed to be aggressive, protective and domineering, and martially oriented. Women are designed to be the opposite, and are historically gifted in balancing the attributes of the male. In fact, they seem to fit like a puzzle piece.
No, morality does not vary from culture to culture. That's the problem - whatever anybody thinks is OK because, hey! My morals are different from your morals. If you truly believe in this morally relativistic garbage, you would accept that my morals are just as valid as yours. Any other conceivable option is called HYPOCRISY.
Love =/= sex or arousal. Wrong, false, fail, sorry. I've been aroused, I've had sex, and I've loved, and anyone who has knowledge of all three realizes the fallacy in your arbitrary equation. I love a few people, friend, and I don't have sex with most of them. I'm aroused by attractive women, but I don't necessarily love them. I have had sex without love being being a factor. Sex drive and love are two different concepts entirely.
As for shaving, etc., they all have a purpose. The ones you listed apply to appearance - which can be considered vanity or idolatry in extreme circumstances (aka immorality) - or, even more ludicrously, to health. Again, the use of tools in order to achieve specific ends which are beneficial are not actually unnatural. As I must explain YET AGAIN, what is natural to an ape is not necessarily natural to a dolphin, or a sea urchin, or a bird, or human.

 

Yes, do. If the gay mafia can twist the arms of those in power, so can those opposed. In fact, someone might make a nice living suing variuos groups who dare to place kids in harm's way.

1. Adoption agencies and individual agents.

2. Public schools and individual teachers.

3. Boy Scouts and individual leaders

4. Public officials promoting gay sex to kids through various forms of "modeling as normal" legislative acts.

 

That is an excellent point. It would be the heterosexual equivalent to making the girl scouts the "co-ed scouts" - and that would raise a few eyebrows.

 

morality is of course relative. It is entirely subjective.

 

so, if gay sex is not an activity, then what does being gay make you?

Is it a new species, gender or race? If you come back to tell me that it makes you none of that then why are we having all of these gay rights threads?

A black man can't stop being black

a female can't stop being female

a heterosexual can become celibate


a heterosexual is merely a descriptor for what a male or female (could be black/white/yellow) does. Being a vegan or nudist is also a descriptor and we don't need new rights for them either

gay sex is nothing more than an activity and does not need to be forced upon the boy scouts, schools, employers, nowhere

 

Yes, essentially. Not because it needs my approval, but because I, unlike you, take my moral advice from someone far greater than myself.
Which is much better than your hypocrisy in saying "morality is relative" in the breath before you say MY morality is flawed.

 

so the answer is yes...if a boy where to kiss your son you would kill that boy.....
sounds to me like a terroristic threat./

 

This was exactly my opposition to repeal of DADT in the military. Forcing hetero guys to sleep, shower and dress in the same barracks as openly gay men is the same as forcing women to allow males in their barracks to do the same and vice versa. The latter of course young men would be thrilled with but hardly conducive to strategic advantage...as distractions rarely are...

And what do you know? Suddenly just after DADT was repealed and gays serve openly gay [why?] in the military, we have a sharp increase in sexual assault in the military. Wow, shocker!

I guess we know what "openly gay" means in the military now...

 

And, of course, since you said it, we all know it to be unadulterated truth.
If morality is truly subjective, there can be no argument concerning morality; it would be an exercise in insanity and futility. It would also be hypocrisy.

 

Everything is relative with some in this crowd. They're the same ones that try and float that gender is a meaningless social construct garbage. Male and Female is just a feeling to them. It's a strange new world Charles.