Anyway, SquareD or whatever your name is these days, I'm sorry, but the world just doesn't need gay scout leaders. If homosexuals want to have a private organization of gay scout leaders leading gay kids out in the woods, that's fine with me. My guess is that such an organization won't last terribly long, though.
I perfectly understand all the sorts of raging hormones that go on at that age. I'm 21 turning 22 myself so not too far removed from the teenage years. I also went to High School in an non co-ed Catholic High School. I've honestly never ever seen any sort of recruitment. If it happens I've never been a target, though in fairness, the only gays I've known were those in my own age group.Now, with all of that out of the way, the BSA is a bit of a special case. In the perfect, idyllic world that you portray, boys are sweet, innocent things from age 12-18, with never a thought of sex in their heads, and the (often) young to middle-aged adult males only have pure thoughts and intentions. Here in the real world, boys from age 12-18 have raging hormones and all manner of sexual confusion and wonder. And usually a hard-on. I know: I was once a boy, all the way from age 12 to age 18. Now, a lot of gay people won't admit it (though some of them will), but a whole lot of young men are "recruited" into the gay lifestyle by older men (usually from late 20s to early 40s, just about the age of your typical Scoutmaster). I've personally seen this go on at least a dozen times, and I've even had an older gay man try to "recruit" me when I was 17 or 18. Lots will try to deny that this happens, but there are plenty of reasonably honest gay people out there who will admit this is the truth when cornered.
That makes the BSA an incredibly fertile garden gay men who want to have boys who can be "molded" into other gay men, who then grow older and find a new batch of recruits.
Now with the rampant horniness of the teenage years, I still don't see how a teen could be "recruited" into homosexuality. A young kid could be molested, for sure, and that sadly happens all too often, but a young boy who is molested isn't necessarily going to be gay...I know when I was in High School, even in our first year (which you figure we would've been 13-14) we all knew what being gay was. And I think a great portion of us knew what we liked in terms of sexuality. I don't see how a teenager, at least in today's world, could be "recuited" into liking men. They could be seduced, perhaps, by a pervert, into indulging gay acts...But I don't believe any of us has a choice in whether we like women or men. I certainly don't recall "choosing" to find women attractive at any point in my life; From as far back as I can remember--age 3 or so--I always liked girls. Now, that's just my subjective experience but using that...I don't see that there's a choice in being attracted to whatever you're attracted to.
What do you mean it's not a CONSCIOUS choice? What sort of "choice" would it be? As far as I'm concerned, the only "choice" with regard to sexuality is choosing to act or not. What I mean is, I don't feel gays choose to find others of their own sex attractive, just as I don't choose to find certain women attractive. We can't force ourselves to be attracted to something our mind or body just isn't into.Whether any gay people want to admit it or not (most don't now, though they were screaming this from the rooftops 20 and 30 years ago), homosexuality is a choice. It may not be a conscious choice, but it's a choice. And gays themselves have forced this to be the only possible choice: for many years, homosexuality was considered a mental defect, and then they screamed that it wasn't, so homosexuality was taken out of the DSM, and they proudly proclaimed that they were exercising their choice, but then when choice became inconvenient, they said that it was not a choice. But it can't not be a choice if it's not a mental defect, so it has to be some sort of genetic differentiation. But decades of very well-funded research has yet to find this elusive "gay gene." The reason that it hasn't been found is that it doesn't exist, because homosexuality is a choice. Of course, the gay lobby can't admit that now, because it would blow everything they hope to achieve in special rights for gays right out of the water. So they press on with this ludicrous "genetic gay" crap because it sounds good on Capitol Hill and it garners sympathy. After all, who can blame the poor gay people who can't help but bugger each other in the ass?
But there is the choice to act on our desires or attractions. A gay person I don't feel chooses to be attracted to another man or woman, but they do choose to sleep with that person. Now, some feel they should NOT do it. That they should repress their desires or whatever. I feel this is wrong, personally. As long as you're not hurting anyone or doing something illegal I don't see why a person can't do what makes them happy.
I'm aware of the DSM calling homosexuality a mental defect and how it was changed in the '70s under pressure from gay activists and the like. I don't myself know the origin of homosexuality, but I've heard things about gays' brains being wired differently than straights. I don't know if that's true but it'd make sense. Others have said nature itself creates gays as a form of population control. Dunno if that's true either. I don't believe in a gay gene...Never did.
Now, even if it is a choice...I say again so what? Why should I be up in arms over something that would never effect me, that isn't harming anyone? I think it's very dangerous ground to start calling things we find icky "mental defects." Because if you label something as a mental defect, than you'd want to "treat" it, so you can "cure" it. That's the kind of thinking, IMO, that led to the ugliness of eugenics--Getting rid of the undesirables, the unwanted, the icky people. For the eugenicists, prostitutes, the poor, the slow, drunks and others were the icky people, the dead weight of society, who in order to create a better society should be treated or sterilized. It's a very dangerous road to go down....All of us have our own sexual things and whatnot and what happens if someone prudish comes along and says that our private bedroom practices are the result of a metal defect?
I'd only support such efforts in the case of behaviors that clearly harm people, such as pedophilia. From what I've seen, pedophiles in large measure do not choose to like young children and feel on a level it is wrong to like children. Yet they are compelled to act on their desires the same way an alcoholic is compelled to drink. That I would support all sorts of therapy for.
I don't feel scoutmasters or the like should be gay...I'm talking about a kid who wants to join. If a kid, a teenager, whatever, wants to join and he happens to identify as gay, I don't feel the kid should be excluded. I really doubt a teenager or kid is going to engage in pederasty. An adult man perhaps, but there's the thing of all gay men not being pedophiles. I don't feel gay men are all pedophiles. Some definitely are. It is questionable to a degree that an adult gay male would want to join an organization of young men, though.So, I'm sorry, but the BSA is just not the place to put unsupervised gay men with impressionable young boys. It's just too much of a risk, and the BSA has every right to, and is right in, doing what they can to mitigate that risk.
You (the Royal You) wanna be gay? Fine by me. Go be gay and bugger as many other willing guys in the ass that you want to. I find it utterly disgusting, but it's none of my business so long as it's two consenting grown-ups. But when you're engaging in, for lack of a better description, gay pederasty, then I'm sorry, but I draw the line when it comes to private organizations who don't want you doing that to their boys who are otherwise growing up to be healthy, hearty, well-rounded men who, statistically, go on to lead successful lives.
This brings up one of my issues about gay people. Why would a kid have to announce that he's gay? Just to see if they'll let him in? Normal people don't go somewhere and say "hi I'm Joe and I'm (gay, straight,) whatever." It all seems like attention-getting behavior to me. Maybe some people like to be made to feel bad.I don't feel scoutmasters or the like should be gay...I'm talking about a kid who wants to join. If a kid, a teenager, whatever, wants to join and he happens to identify as gay, I don't feel the kid should be excluded.
I don't announce what I do in the bedroom, and I sure don't want you to either.
How noble are we to view an organization which maintains that it serves a vital role in the nurture of young men but seeks to deny that service to young gay men?
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|