Boyscouts snip from ticked thread

[Luke]

His response about my anger over tax dollars to BSA...

"In God We Trust" is on our currency. Feel free to start yelling at our government, then build your way down to the BSA.

[dsheinem]

His response about my anger over tax dollars to BSA...

"In God We Trust" is on our currency.

And it shouldn't be. It is a result of Cold War era fear mongering and the need to distinguish ourselves from the "godless Ruskies" as much as possible.

[Luke]

"One Country, Under God..."


You have much bigger fish to fry than the BSA.

[indecks]

So if someone molests someone of the same sex that isn't homosexuality?

It may be a homosexual act, but that doesn't make either of those involved homosexuals.

Exactly.

Just like someone who rapes another person doesn't necessarily mean hes a rapist.

Right?

lulz

[Jmustang1968]

Better keep all the straight men as far away as possible from young girls. After all, it stands to reason that a man must first be heterosexual to be attracted to young girls.

The idea that homosexuals are somehow more likely to rape children is a ridiculously offensive notion.

You are obviously not reading what I wrote correctly.

I would say the risk is there with a homosexual and young boys just as it would be there with a heterosexual man and young girls. I never said a homosexual is more likely to be a pedophile as a general rule. I would actually be more concerned with a man with young girls as there is a higher % of him being attracted to the girls.

There is also a difference between being in contact with and around and being in close relatively intimate proximity and relation for long periods of time.

[dsheinem]

So if someone molests someone of the same sex that isn't homosexuality?

It may be a homosexual act, but that doesn't make either of those involved homosexuals.

Well of cou....whaaaa? You lost me Dishwasher. That read like "Just because someone never wears clothes that doesn't make them a nudist".

If you are a male, make out with another male, and diddle with his pooper...yup. You are a homosexual. That is an act of judgment and desire.

Eating only vegetables for one day doesn't make you a vegetarian, but a full day of guy on guy sex definitely says you are gay or bi-sexual.

So basically you and the guy who molests 6 year old girls have the same views on sexuality, the same sex-drive, same sexual attractions, etc.?

The point I am getting at is that we know, empirically, that the "sexual worldview" of many pedophiles is different than that of most of the rest of us (whether we be straight or gay). We also know that many of those who "diddle the pooper" of a kid are indiscriminate when it comes to the sex of the kid they choose. Definitions of heterosexuality/homosexuality don't really apply here, and when people use them in discussions like this to help create a link between pedophilia and homosexuality, they are doing a lot of undue harm and perpetuating long ago debunked myths.

[Michi]

His response about my anger over tax dollars to BSA...

"In God We Trust" is on our currency.

And it shouldn't be. It is a result of Cold War era fear mongering and the need to distinguish ourselves from the "godless Ruskies" as much as possible.

Right. Before that it was just "E Pluribus Unum." Out of many, One.

Although, it appears on coins going back to the 1860. It doesn't appear on paper currency until 1957. Three years after they added "Under God" to the pledge of allegiance.

[mjmjr25]

Where in the constitution does it suggest PP should pass out condoms in high schools (or middle schools in some cities)? I'm lost - by your contention if it's "legal" or in the constitution, or upheld by some supreme court decision, then it's ok? Then...what is your objection to the scouts again? I'm trying to catch a red herring here and i'm struggling.

It doesn't have to be PP, that is one quick example. Tax dollars go to both food vouchers and medical insurance programs. In and of themselves, they are well intentioned and supported by most of us. It doesn't mean they aren't so rampantly abused that it creates disdain and eventually non-support. I have a number of people I manage who decline insurance at work because the can "get it for free" from the state. Not the intention of the law(s) and/or programs.

I know you don't see it this way, but your arguments today really sound like, "If it suits my beliefs, then it's fine." It really reads that way, dsh. I support your dislike, or rather non-support for scouts, and absolutely see your viewpoint - yet you don't see someone else's view who is upset at the way tax dollars are spent? I think given our druthers, we'd all be able to find dozens and dozens of programs we think should not have our tax dollars involved in.

@Queso - I think you made the point that some of us are suggesting. No one suggests that homosexuals are more prone to rape, rather, why put people in a position where they may be sexually attracted to someone they are mentoring.

Straight Men should not be overseeing young females in scout settings.
Straight Women should not be overseeing young males in scout settings.
Homosexual Men should not be overseeing young males in scout settings.
Homosexual Females should not be overseeing young females in scout settings.

[dsheinem]

"One Country, Under God..."


You have much bigger fish to fry than the BSA.

The pledge was adopted in WW2.

"Under God" was adopted around the same time our money got Jesus. War and religion go together like peanut butter and jelly.

[Jmustang1968]

Your overuse of false equivalency is a false equivalency. His point was made, you can always nitpick the differences in comparisons.

I don't think you know what a false equivalency is

His response about my anger over tax dollars to BSA was basically "oh well, we all don't like some stuff our taxes go to." That unfairly minimizes the weight of my argument.

The difference between the two examples (PP and BSA) is that there is plenty of good legal justification for funding PP, and there is no good legal justification for funding BSA. They aren't equivalent instances in terms of how tax spending is justified or allocated, which was the contention.

The first line was a joke, I know what it means.

But you are focusing on one aspect of it to try and negate funding. Many groups with religious ties in some for or other receive funding.