Of course I know. But it's a pain in the ass. I'm sure all the HTML programmers love it, but the bottom line is if you choose to post in HTML on slashdot it is a real pain in the butt comared to WYSIWYG BBS editors available elsewhere.
I can either put a "/" around words I want to emphasize, or I can switch to HTML mode and have to type full HTML tags to highlight, PLUS I get to code in paragraph breaks to get proper formatting.
Writing in HTML is not pleasant nor modern. I want to highlight a word, and click on the "underline" button. This is what people are used to seeing in Word Processors, and now in their (HTML enabled) email.
>So why use slashes for emphasis when you post/here/ then? Come on, this isn't 1980 anymore, you know.
The answer, simply, is because Slashdot's text editor is primitive and outdated compared to other, more modern, WYSIWYG BBS text editors.
In order to add text formatting to a post here on slashdot, I have to actually hand-code in HTML tags. Pul-eaze. I could type in the HTML tag for underline, or I could just add a "/" around the world I want to emphasize. Which is easier?
Not to mention that if I chose HTML formatting, then I also have to hand-code in HTML paragraph breaks between paragraphs. What is this, WordPerfect 1.0?
I am not responding to your post in particular, but it is as convenient a spot as any in the sea of "No HTML email!" posts.
I use HTML email for one reason: text formatting. I like including underlines and italics in my emails for emphasis. Yes, I can post like I do here on slashdot and use/slashes/ for emphasis in plain text, but come on, this isn't 1980 anymore, you know?
At work I frequently embed images in my emails because I am discussing engineering problems and it is frequently useful to include pictures to describe the problem.
But the primary reason I use HTML email is for text formatting.
>You blithely accuse all kids of homophobia and say they're cruel enough to pick on you just for being a >nerd on the one hand, but then want to pretend they wouldn't pick on kids for not being white on the other? >You aren't just a bigot, you're a disingenuous one.
My experience in Scouting was that racial issues were not very relevant, because troops tended to be predominantly white or predominantly black. This is not surprising to me because many, if not most, troops are sponsored by churches, which tend to be the most self-segregated institutions around.
We did have one black kid in our troop - he was an adopted brother of 3 other brothers in the troop. I don't remember him having any issues within the troop. Perhaps racial tolerance is more accepted than homosexuality, I don't know.
>You tell that story about the gay kid as if it supported excluding gay kids from scouting. That kid wasn't the >problem; the other kids were. Though, at a deeper level, where do you think they got the idea that the >gay kid was the one to make fun of? Maybe from organizations that declare Homosexuals to be not "morally straight"?
Hell if I know where they get their ideas. Where did they get the idea to pick on nerds like me? Where did they get the idea to pick on kids like me who's parents didn't buy them Izod shirts and Nike shoes? Play any online games? Everyone who does something they don't like is "gay". The fact is, kids just don't tolerate people who are different, and I think they figure out the differences all by themselves.
"one of the other kids kneed him in the crotch - so hard it split the end of his penis. And there was not a damn thing I could do about it."
>Optimally, call the police; you witnessed the commission of assault and battery. At the least, >kick them out of the scout troop. But a stern talking to? Are you kidding?
I was not actually present at the time of the assault. I was back at the meeting dealing with some after-meeting issue. I was still a Scout at this time - probably Senior Patrol Leader or somesuch - not an adult leader. I don't think any adults were present, either. At the time, after meetings all the kids just ran to the athletic field to play some kind of game - the adults usually stayed in the "Scout Hut" dealing with whatever loose ends needed tying up. The talking-to that I attempted with the rest of "my guys" was well before the assault, at a summer camp. After the assault I don't think we saw him again. I don't know how the assault was handled. I doubt the police were involved or I would have heard about it / remembered it. Nor do I remember who committed the assault or what, if anything became of them.
>I think you're still buying into outdated stereotypes about homosexuals. Sure, some intentionally act effeminately, >but certainly not all. I also know two that can kick my butt, and I'm not exactly an easy mark. There are a lot of >homosexuals these days that are into weight lifting and martial arts... a lot of persecuted cultures seem to do that. >From there, a lot of them become interested in guns, archery, camping, etc., just the things the the boy scouts tend to teach.
I'm not sure it is intentional when they act effeminately, in fact I suspect it is not intentional at all, and furthers my belief that homosexuality is not a choice - who could decide one day to put on such an affectation?
In my life I have known 6 gay men and one gay teenager that I knew to be gay. Of them, 3 of them spoke in a manner that I can only describe as "gay". It is not the over-dramatic, Robin Williams "lisp", but it is, nonetheless, detectable to me. You might say that I knew they were gay and thus interpreted the way they spoke as gay, but anecdotally in the case of one fellow, I knew there was a gay man where I worked at a new job but I did not know who he was. As soon as I was introduced I pegged him as the fellow and, in fact, it was. This fellow is also a black belt in a martial art, so I am not trying to say that gay people who speak in a certain way can't be physically tough.
>Certainly, children tend to be cruel and pick on those different than them. In 1974 many boy scout leaders argued that >black children could not be integrated into "mixed race" boy scout troops because the white kids would not accept blacks >as equals. To some degree, they were and are still correct. But for the most part blacks kids are now accepted by the >majority of their white peers. Until you allow kids to socialize together and overcome their prejudices, all you're >doing is making the prejudice worse by promoting and exploiting ignorance.
From my personal experience I don't think integration has done much of anything, sadly. When I was in Scouts (1981-1988) you had predominantly white troops and predominantly black troops. This is not surprising to me as many, if not most troops are sponsored by churches, and churches remain the most self-segregated institutions around. Further, all through school, college, and later professionally, one need only look out across the lunch room and see further evidence of self-segregation.
The sad fact of the matter is, for all they tell you as a child that you are "unique" and "special", and that you should resist peer pressure and not conform to the norm, we seem to be driven to do exactly that, except in the case of celebrity for some reason.
My fear and suspicion is that acceptance of homosexuality will parallel acceptance of racial diversity, which is to say it won't happen for a long, long time.
Nonetheless, Scouting is first and foremost about leadership, followed closely by what is essentially survival and civic training. These are admirable things, and should be open to everyone regardless of religious belief or sexual orientation.
I am a lifetime member of NESA (National Eagle Scout Association). I will work for this cause.
After considering the issue this evening, I believe the wisest course would be for the BSA to officially change its stance to allow anyone in regardless of religious affiliation (or lack thereof) or sexual orientation. The situation will sort itself out socially.
I applaud your position. I have every confidence such a move by the scouts would eventually "sort itself out" just as it did with the issue of race.
You know, the sad part about this whole series of threads today is I saw what happened to the obviously gay kid in my troop. You people think it's all about me and MY attitude towards gay people, and that could not be farther from the truth. I saw what happened to that kid. They made little songs about him with his name in it, sung complete with lispy accent. Finally one day at "recess" (after meetings the kids went out to the athletic field to play) one of the other kids kneed him in the crotch - so hard it split the end of his penis. And there was not a damn thing I could do about it. I sat the entire troop down one summer camp while he was out at a class and told them in no uncertain terms they had to stop picking on him and give him a chance. To no avail.
So I know, I know, let's all paint maillemaker as a bigot who hates gays. I'm not. I am completely ambivalent about people's sexuality and consider it a born trait no more important than your hair color. The fact of the matter is, Scouting hardly ever touches on sexuality and is mostly about leadership and survivalist training - skills that anyone, gay or straight, can take advantage of. I just don't think it's ever going to work out based on my experience. But you're right - they should open up to everyone. Let's give it a shot.
>You know, people have discussions about sex with peers and other adults in all sorts >of contexts, not just walking through the woods. I can only assume you'd like to ban gays from life in general. Sorry, but you're a bigot.
Well you know what they say about assuming. I don't care one whit what adults do in their bedrooms.
Anyway, I concede the debate. The Scouts should let everyone in. The situation will socially self-sort. Either their fellow kids will welcome the homosexual kids in with open arms and they will stay, or they won't, and they will leave. All the BSA is doing now is buying bad press and loosing access to resources.
>the "statistically normal" skin color in america is white, so does that mean the scouts should be driving out all the niggers
No, of course not, but I'll tell you what you will find: predominantly white troops and predominantly black troops. But seldom integrated ones. Much like public schools and churches, which isn't surprising since many Scout troops are sponsored by churches. Troops, like schools and churches, seem to socially self-sort.
>Oh, so when you brandished around the fact that your best man was gay, >as evidence of your lack of homophobia, you were being obscenely disingenuous.
I'm not sure how...I knew he was gay long before I got married. Didn't make any difference to me. Look I once went to the beach with 3 lesbians and 3 gay guys - I was the only straight person there. I know you don't believe it but I really don't care what people do in their bedrooms.
>If that's what you mean by "normal", and your view of the Scouts is that it helps boys grow up to >be "normal" men, then, by your logic, the Scouts should treat left-handed people the same way they treat homosexuals, right?
If being left handed resulted in complete ostracization from the group I'd say you might have a point.
I concede the debate. Let everyone in. The situation will self-sort socially. Probably be as successful as integrated schools.
If it makes you happy I will substitute "usual" for "normal".
>If you think you can't teach kids that making fun of someone because they're homosexual is wrong then similarly >you must believe that you can't teach kids that being of different race is wrong. You can teach kids these things, >there just has to be the will to do it and all that requires is the same strictness in understanding that racism, >agism and making fun of people's disabilities is wrong to extend to the idea that making fun of people's sexual preference is wrong.
My personal experience is you can't stop kids from picking on people who are different than their peer group. In my case it was being a nerd. It did not matter if the adults disciplined the offenders - they just took their actions underground for when no one was looking.
>Luckily however I don't suffer from the amazing level of bigotry you've displayed here and can quite >happily realise that sexual preference isn't a choice anymore than race is which is certainly more than >can be said for things like religion and bigotry.
In point of fact I agree with you that sexual preference is not a choice, as all the gay people I've asked (six or seven) said they never chose their sexuality.
>It's an interesting ploy to make out that gay people shouldn't be in scouting >for their own good, because of all the homophobia present in the scouts...
It's an interesting ploy to say that a group of teenage paramilitary boys ostracizing abnormal sexual behavior is a phobia of homosexuality. I'd say it's just what kids do - ostracize people who are different from them. Wish it was different, but I can tell you from personal experience, it's the reality.
>Wait - are you intentionally conflating two different meanings of "normal", or are you just at the abnormally low end of the IQ curve?
I am using the word "normal" in the statistical sense.
I don't think you are ever going to get homosexuals teenage boys to fit into a group of paramilitary heterosexual teenage boys, regardless of my position or the position of the BSA.
After considering the issue this evening, I believe the wisest course would be for the BSA to officially change its stance to allow anyone in regardless of religious affiliation (or lack thereof) or sexual orientation. The situation will sort itself out socially.
>Being chinese american is not statistically "normal" either. It is not the common condition. Thus, the analogy is perfectly appropriate.
Except completely non-sequitur. I can see no way how being a Chinese American would adversely affect their Scouting experience, unless there was some kind of xenophobia in their troop. Across Scouting as a whole, I have not seen this to be the case.
>The boy scouts are a camping and paramilitary survivalist organization, not a making heterosexual men organization. >Or so they claim. What do you think a "scout" is?
The Boy Scouts are indeed a camping and paramilitary survivalist organization. But if you don't think it also supports teenage boys growing up into men deal with heterosexual issues, you're wrong, because it does.
>The way you're getting defensive and trying to rationalize away my analogy is interesting. >Starting to feel uncomfortable about your prejudice and intolerance? I hope so.
I don't think it's a prejudice. I am uncomfortable with my intolerance. It's a shitty situation, and I am enjoying the discussion and introspection, despite the fact that everyone wants to crucify me. I am, in fact, questioning my stance on this position. I am very solidly certain, however, that no matter what official policy of the BSA may be, I think openly gay scouts are going to have a hard time fitting into Scouting.
You may have seen in another posting, that I would not have a problem with gay scout/leaders/. There are no developmental issues going on with them, and assuming they are otherwise normal, rational adults, even though they would lack perspective on normal teenage adolescence I'm sure they would make fine Scout Leaders.
>Really. I don't remember there being a merit badge for dating (or insert the slang copulation synonym of your choice) women.
How old were you when you got out of Scouting? I assure you, merit badges or not, any group of teenage boys is going to have discussions about sex, official or otherwise. Scouting is no exception.
>Seriously, what about being a Boy Scout is straight-specific?
Nothing, except the ability to fit in and feel understood and accepted by your peers and mentors. I believe this is a crucial aspect to Scouting and without it not only will you get nothing out of the experience but you will probably leave shortly on your own anyway. This is what I saw happen to a gay scout in my troop.
>Well, yes. It makes it possible, for a start. But if you happen to be heterosexual, why would you >WANT the Boy Scouts of America to guide you in the process of growing up to be a homosexual man?
I don't know how an organization that guides normal boys to grow up to be normal young men could not do so. Sex is always a topic of discussion among teenage boys, and Scouts is no exception. On more than one occasion I remember those discussions involving adults in the group, and I'm talking up-and-up stuff here, not pedo stuff.
If you've got an organization dealing with boys 10.5 to 18 years old, you're going to have discussions about sex somewhere along the way, formally or otherwise.
>Did you tell him your opinion of him - that he shouldn't be allowed in the scouts, >and you think he's not a normal man, and therefore must be trying to be a woman?
It wasn't until years later that I knew for certain he was gay, when he confided to me that he had had sex with other men.
There is no need for me to bring up the abnormality of his sexuality, I'm sure he's smart enough to understand that the statistically normal condition is heterosexuality.
I'm not sure when I was 18 if I would have been able to articulate the problems that I now see of homosexuality in Scouting, so I don't know what I would have said to him if I knew he was gay.
Probably nothing. We had another kid in our troop who was very effeminate, and I found out that he did, in fact, grow up to be a gay man. I was pretty sure of that even knowing him as a kid of 15 or so. He caught absolute hell from the rest of the boys in the troop. They made jokes about him to his face and behind his back, despite my efforts and chastisements that they should not pick on him so. Ultimately he left the troop and I'm not surprised, he was probably miserable.
Honestly, this is my basis for supporting Scouting's stance on homosexuality. Scouting as an organization has no support mechanism for gay youth. Obviously it is rejected (foolishly) on the grounds of "morality", but for whatever reason, they don't have a support mechanism for it. And the kids, mostly being of the usual sexual orientation, won't support them, either, and in fact, my experience has shown they will brutalize them.
It's just not a gay-friendly place, and I don't think it will be even if official policy changes. I don't know how to change that.
>Yet you're afraid to let them near your children, and afraid that they might make your children turn out just like them...
Absolutely not. I believe sexuality is inborn and that we have little control over it - I believe it is likely genetic.
I do not believe people can be "turned" gay. Every gay person I've ever asked (and I've had several gay friends over the years) has told me they did not choose to be gay, and I'm not surprised - I never chose to be heterosexual.
>Oh, so fucking girls is part of the scout program? Because that's what you're implying.
"Fucking girls", as you put it, or, as I'd put it, dealing with normal adolescent sexuality, most certainly was a part of my Scouting experience. While not official "sex ed" type of discussions, most certainly there were discussions about sex while trudging along through the woods. I always got a laugh that my parents put me in Scouting because it was a "Good, Wholesome Activity", and yet I learned most of my cuss words, dirty jokes, and yes, about sex through Scouting.
>Unless you are saying that gay boys' sexual preferences have such far-reaching consequences that they cannot >intermingle with straight guys and learn to start fires with rocks or kill bears or whatever. Which I can totally >understand - I find it hard to understand what people who prefer blondes are saying when they talk to me, for instance.
I have no doubt that gay kids can learn to intermingle with straight guys and learn to start fires with rocks and all the other things that Scouting offers.
What I do doubt is that they will ever fit in to the Scouting environment. I also do not believe they will be adequately supported with the adolescent issues of growing up gay.
On reflection, I will note here that I don't really have a problem with gay Scout/leaders/, even though they may be out-of-touch with the adolescent issues of normal sexuality in youths, they are adults, and I have full confidence that even with the lack of understanding of heterosexual adolescence they'd be fine leaders, all else being equal.
Maybe if there were more homosexual Scout leaders there would be a better support base for homosexual Scouts. Something for me to think about.
>And you think being homosexual is abnormal. How about being chinese american? I that normal enough for you? 'Normal' >is a subjective term and it is only your opposition to homosexuality that leads you to single out that one >subset of society for discrimination.
I did not think it was necessary to say this on Slashdot, but for your benefit I will point out that I was using the word "normal" in a statistical sense. Homosexuality is not the normal condition. This is not to say it is not a natural condition, which of course it is.
>No it would be like going to a government funded model train club while black and expecting >to build model trains with everyone else, instead of being told that black kids aren't normal enough to be model train engineers.
Except being black has no bearing on your ability to play with model trains, or anything else. Being homosexual has a large bearing on the ability of the Boy Scouts of America to guide you in the process of growing up to be a homosexual man.
>So you got that "having sex with females" merit badge? I only went through "Star" scout, but I don't recall a single scouting >activity that depended on my ability to have the hots for women. Scouting is a place that has no need to reference sexual >orientation at all. It has, collectively, no need or ability to affect the sexual orientation of its members. >Why exactly it has decided to have the desire is beyond me.
Obviously there are no "having sex with females" merit badges. Nonetheless I remember having discussions about sex with my peers and with adult leaders in our troop. It wasn't like and official "sex ed" type of setting, it was a discussion about sex with a bunch of friends hiking through the woods. All on the up-and-up. As such, it helped me deal with questions about normal sexuality. I don't think the Scouting environment will ever foster this kind of environment for homosexuals.
>In the aftermath of the referenced court decision, they reflected upon their Christian values, and kicked the scouts to the curb.
That's wonderful. One of the largest, most respected, proven institutions of leadership and man-building in our country and you are happy to see it's demise. For all it's faults, you should be ashamed.
>Yeah, I see they taught you some real fine lessons. I think you just made our point.
And what point would that be? It's the truth. The Scouting Organization is an organization to help boys become normal men. This includes dealing with all the issues of normal adolescence encountered along the way. It collectively has no provision, ability, nor desire to help boys grow up to be homosexuals, or deal with homosexual issues of adolescence encountered along the way.
The BSA is/excellent/ at what it does. I'm sorry that it can't be excellent at helping homosexual boys grow up to be homosexual men. Perhaps you could start an organization to cater to their needs.
Slashdot Mirror
>Our entire space program from 1958 to today cost less than our current misadventures in the middle east.
Gawd that is depressing.
Of course I know. But it's a pain in the ass. I'm sure all the HTML programmers love it, but the bottom line is if you choose to post in HTML on slashdot it is a real pain in the butt comared to WYSIWYG BBS editors available elsewhere.
I can either put a "/" around words I want to emphasize, or I can switch to HTML mode and have to type full HTML tags to highlight, PLUS I get to code in paragraph breaks to get proper formatting.
Writing in HTML is not pleasant nor modern. I want to highlight a word, and click on the "underline" button. This is what people are used to seeing in Word Processors, and now in their (HTML enabled) email.
>So why use slashes for emphasis when you post /here/ then? Come on, this isn't 1980 anymore, you know.
The answer, simply, is because Slashdot's text editor is primitive and outdated compared to other, more modern, WYSIWYG BBS text editors.
In order to add text formatting to a post here on slashdot, I have to actually hand-code in HTML tags. Pul-eaze. I could type in the HTML tag for underline, or I could just add a "/" around the world I want to emphasize. Which is easier?
Not to mention that if I chose HTML formatting, then I also have to hand-code in HTML paragraph breaks between paragraphs. What is this, WordPerfect 1.0?
I am not responding to your post in particular, but it is as convenient a spot as any in the sea of "No HTML email!" posts. I use HTML email for one reason: text formatting. I like including underlines and italics in my emails for emphasis. Yes, I can post like I do here on slashdot and use /slashes/ for emphasis in plain text, but come on, this isn't 1980 anymore, you know?
At work I frequently embed images in my emails because I am discussing engineering problems and it is frequently useful to include pictures to describe the problem.
But the primary reason I use HTML email is for text formatting.
>You blithely accuse all kids of homophobia and say they're cruel enough to pick on you just for being a
>nerd on the one hand, but then want to pretend they wouldn't pick on kids for not being white on the other?
>You aren't just a bigot, you're a disingenuous one.
My experience in Scouting was that racial issues were not very relevant, because troops tended to be predominantly white or predominantly black. This is not surprising to me because many, if not most, troops are sponsored by churches, which tend to be the most self-segregated institutions around.
We did have one black kid in our troop - he was an adopted brother of 3 other brothers in the troop. I don't remember him having any issues within the troop. Perhaps racial tolerance is more accepted than homosexuality, I don't know.
>You tell that story about the gay kid as if it supported excluding gay kids from scouting. That kid wasn't the
>problem; the other kids were. Though, at a deeper level, where do you think they got the idea that the
>gay kid was the one to make fun of? Maybe from organizations that declare Homosexuals to be not "morally straight"?
Hell if I know where they get their ideas. Where did they get the idea to pick on nerds like me? Where did they get the idea to pick on kids like me who's parents didn't buy them Izod shirts and Nike shoes? Play any online games? Everyone who does something they don't like is "gay". The fact is, kids just don't tolerate people who are different, and I think they figure out the differences all by themselves.
"one of the other kids kneed him in the crotch - so hard it split the end of his penis. And there was not a damn thing I could do about it."
>Optimally, call the police; you witnessed the commission of assault and battery. At the least,
>kick them out of the scout troop. But a stern talking to? Are you kidding?
I was not actually present at the time of the assault. I was back at the meeting dealing with some after-meeting issue. I was still a Scout at this time - probably Senior Patrol Leader or somesuch - not an adult leader. I don't think any adults were present, either. At the time, after meetings all the kids just ran to the athletic field to play some kind of game - the adults usually stayed in the "Scout Hut" dealing with whatever loose ends needed tying up. The talking-to that I attempted with the rest of "my guys" was well before the assault, at a summer camp. After the assault I don't think we saw him again. I don't know how the assault was handled. I doubt the police were involved or I would have heard about it / remembered it. Nor do I remember who committed the assault or what, if anything became of them.
>I think you're still buying into outdated stereotypes about homosexuals. Sure, some intentionally act effeminately,
>but certainly not all. I also know two that can kick my butt, and I'm not exactly an easy mark. There are a lot of
>homosexuals these days that are into weight lifting and martial arts... a lot of persecuted cultures seem to do that.
>From there, a lot of them become interested in guns, archery, camping, etc., just the things the the boy scouts tend to teach.
I'm not sure it is intentional when they act effeminately, in fact I suspect it is not intentional at all, and furthers my belief that homosexuality is not a choice - who could decide one day to put on such an affectation?
In my life I have known 6 gay men and one gay teenager that I knew to be gay. Of them, 3 of them spoke in a manner that I can only describe as "gay". It is not the over-dramatic, Robin Williams "lisp", but it is, nonetheless, detectable to me. You might say that I knew they were gay and thus interpreted the way they spoke as gay, but anecdotally in the case of one fellow, I knew there was a gay man where I worked at a new job but I did not know who he was. As soon as I was introduced I pegged him as the fellow and, in fact, it was. This fellow is also a black belt in a martial art, so I am not trying to say that gay people who speak in a certain way can't be physically tough.
>Certainly, children tend to be cruel and pick on those different than them. In 1974 many boy scout leaders argued that
>black children could not be integrated into "mixed race" boy scout troops because the white kids would not accept blacks
>as equals. To some degree, they were and are still correct. But for the most part blacks kids are now accepted by the
>majority of their white peers. Until you allow kids to socialize together and overcome their prejudices, all you're
>doing is making the prejudice worse by promoting and exploiting ignorance.
From my personal experience I don't think integration has done much of anything, sadly. When I was in Scouts (1981-1988) you had predominantly white troops and predominantly black troops. This is not surprising to me as many, if not most troops are sponsored by churches, and churches remain the most self-segregated institutions around. Further, all through school, college, and later professionally, one need only look out across the lunch room and see further evidence of self-segregation.
The sad fact of the matter is, for all they tell you as a child that you are "unique" and "special", and that you should resist peer pressure and not conform to the norm, we seem to be driven to do exactly that, except in the case of celebrity for some reason.
My fear and suspicion is that acceptance of homosexuality will parallel acceptance of racial diversity, which is to say it won't happen for a long, long time.
Nonetheless, Scouting is first and foremost about leadership, followed closely by what is essentially survival and civic training. These are admirable things, and should be open to everyone regardless of religious belief or sexual orientation.
I am a lifetime member of NESA (National Eagle Scout Association). I will work for this cause.
After considering the issue this evening, I believe the wisest course would be for the BSA to officially change its stance to allow anyone in regardless of religious affiliation (or lack thereof) or sexual orientation. The situation will sort itself out socially.
I applaud your position. I have every confidence such a move by the scouts would eventually "sort itself out" just as it did with the issue of race.
You know, the sad part about this whole series of threads today is I saw what happened to the obviously gay kid in my troop. You people think it's all about me and MY attitude towards gay people, and that could not be farther from the truth. I saw what happened to that kid. They made little songs about him with his name in it, sung complete with lispy accent. Finally one day at "recess" (after meetings the kids went out to the athletic field to play) one of the other kids kneed him in the crotch - so hard it split the end of his penis. And there was not a damn thing I could do about it. I sat the entire troop down one summer camp while he was out at a class and told them in no uncertain terms they had to stop picking on him and give him a chance. To no avail.
So I know, I know, let's all paint maillemaker as a bigot who hates gays. I'm not. I am completely ambivalent about people's sexuality and consider it a born trait no more important than your hair color. The fact of the matter is, Scouting hardly ever touches on sexuality and is mostly about leadership and survivalist training - skills that anyone, gay or straight, can take advantage of. I just don't think it's ever going to work out based on my experience. But you're right - they should open up to everyone. Let's give it a shot.
>You know, people have discussions about sex with peers and other adults in all sorts
>of contexts, not just walking through the woods. I can only assume you'd like to ban gays from life in general. Sorry, but you're a bigot.
Well you know what they say about assuming. I don't care one whit what adults do in their bedrooms.
Anyway, I concede the debate. The Scouts should let everyone in. The situation will socially self-sort. Either their fellow kids will welcome the homosexual kids in with open arms and they will stay, or they won't, and they will leave. All the BSA is doing now is buying bad press and loosing access to resources.
>the "statistically normal" skin color in america is white, so does that mean the scouts should be driving out all the niggers
No, of course not, but I'll tell you what you will find: predominantly white troops and predominantly black troops. But seldom integrated ones. Much like public schools and churches, which isn't surprising since many Scout troops are sponsored by churches. Troops, like schools and churches, seem to socially self-sort.
>Oh, so when you brandished around the fact that your best man was gay,
>as evidence of your lack of homophobia, you were being obscenely disingenuous.
I'm not sure how...I knew he was gay long before I got married. Didn't make any difference to me. Look I once went to the beach with 3 lesbians and 3 gay guys - I was the only straight person there. I know you don't believe it but I really don't care what people do in their bedrooms.
>If that's what you mean by "normal", and your view of the Scouts is that it helps boys grow up to
>be "normal" men, then, by your logic, the Scouts should treat left-handed people the same way they treat homosexuals, right?
If being left handed resulted in complete ostracization from the group I'd say you might have a point.
I concede the debate. Let everyone in. The situation will self-sort socially. Probably be as successful as integrated schools.
>Following your logic women aren't normal...
If it makes you happy I will substitute "usual" for "normal".
>If you think you can't teach kids that making fun of someone because they're homosexual is wrong then similarly
>you must believe that you can't teach kids that being of different race is wrong. You can teach kids these things,
>there just has to be the will to do it and all that requires is the same strictness in understanding that racism,
>agism and making fun of people's disabilities is wrong to extend to the idea that making fun of people's sexual preference is wrong.
My personal experience is you can't stop kids from picking on people who are different than their peer group. In my case it was being a nerd. It did not matter if the adults disciplined the offenders - they just took their actions underground for when no one was looking.
>Luckily however I don't suffer from the amazing level of bigotry you've displayed here and can quite
>happily realise that sexual preference isn't a choice anymore than race is which is certainly more than
>can be said for things like religion and bigotry.
In point of fact I agree with you that sexual preference is not a choice, as all the gay people I've asked (six or seven) said they never chose their sexuality.
>It's an interesting ploy to make out that gay people shouldn't be in scouting
>for their own good, because of all the homophobia present in the scouts...
It's an interesting ploy to say that a group of teenage paramilitary boys ostracizing abnormal sexual behavior is a phobia of homosexuality. I'd say it's just what kids do - ostracize people who are different from them. Wish it was different, but I can tell you from personal experience, it's the reality.
>Wait - are you intentionally conflating two different meanings of "normal", or are you just at the abnormally low end of the IQ curve?
I am using the word "normal" in the statistical sense.
I don't think you are ever going to get homosexuals teenage boys to fit into a group of paramilitary heterosexual teenage boys, regardless of my position or the position of the BSA.
After considering the issue this evening, I believe the wisest course would be for the BSA to officially change its stance to allow anyone in regardless of religious affiliation (or lack thereof) or sexual orientation. The situation will sort itself out socially.
>Being chinese american is not statistically "normal" either. It is not the common condition. Thus, the analogy is perfectly appropriate.
/leaders/. There are no developmental issues going on with them, and assuming they are otherwise normal, rational adults, even though they would lack perspective on normal teenage adolescence I'm sure they would make fine Scout Leaders.
Except completely non-sequitur. I can see no way how being a Chinese American would adversely affect their Scouting experience, unless there was some kind of xenophobia in their troop. Across Scouting as a whole, I have not seen this to be the case.
>The boy scouts are a camping and paramilitary survivalist organization, not a making heterosexual men organization.
>Or so they claim. What do you think a "scout" is?
The Boy Scouts are indeed a camping and paramilitary survivalist organization. But if you don't think it also supports teenage boys growing up into men deal with heterosexual issues, you're wrong, because it does.
>The way you're getting defensive and trying to rationalize away my analogy is interesting.
>Starting to feel uncomfortable about your prejudice and intolerance? I hope so.
I don't think it's a prejudice. I am uncomfortable with my intolerance. It's a shitty situation, and I am enjoying the discussion and introspection, despite the fact that everyone wants to crucify me. I am, in fact, questioning my stance on this position. I am very solidly certain, however, that no matter what official policy of the BSA may be, I think openly gay scouts are going to have a hard time fitting into Scouting.
You may have seen in another posting, that I would not have a problem with gay scout
>Really. I don't remember there being a merit badge for dating (or insert the slang copulation synonym of your choice) women.
How old were you when you got out of Scouting? I assure you, merit badges or not, any group of teenage boys is going to have discussions about sex, official or otherwise. Scouting is no exception.
>Seriously, what about being a Boy Scout is straight-specific?
Nothing, except the ability to fit in and feel understood and accepted by your peers and mentors. I believe this is a crucial aspect to Scouting and without it not only will you get nothing out of the experience but you will probably leave shortly on your own anyway. This is what I saw happen to a gay scout in my troop.
>Well, yes. It makes it possible, for a start. But if you happen to be heterosexual, why would you
>WANT the Boy Scouts of America to guide you in the process of growing up to be a homosexual man?
I don't know how an organization that guides normal boys to grow up to be normal young men could not do so. Sex is always a topic of discussion among teenage boys, and Scouts is no exception. On more than one occasion I remember those discussions involving adults in the group, and I'm talking up-and-up stuff here, not pedo stuff.
If you've got an organization dealing with boys 10.5 to 18 years old, you're going to have discussions about sex somewhere along the way, formally or otherwise.
>Did you tell him your opinion of him - that he shouldn't be allowed in the scouts,
>and you think he's not a normal man, and therefore must be trying to be a woman?
It wasn't until years later that I knew for certain he was gay, when he confided to me that he had had sex with other men.
There is no need for me to bring up the abnormality of his sexuality, I'm sure he's smart enough to understand that the statistically normal condition is heterosexuality.
I'm not sure when I was 18 if I would have been able to articulate the problems that I now see of homosexuality in Scouting, so I don't know what I would have said to him if I knew he was gay.
Probably nothing. We had another kid in our troop who was very effeminate, and I found out that he did, in fact, grow up to be a gay man. I was pretty sure of that even knowing him as a kid of 15 or so. He caught absolute hell from the rest of the boys in the troop. They made jokes about him to his face and behind his back, despite my efforts and chastisements that they should not pick on him so. Ultimately he left the troop and I'm not surprised, he was probably miserable.
Honestly, this is my basis for supporting Scouting's stance on homosexuality. Scouting as an organization has no support mechanism for gay youth. Obviously it is rejected (foolishly) on the grounds of "morality", but for whatever reason, they don't have a support mechanism for it. And the kids, mostly being of the usual sexual orientation, won't support them, either, and in fact, my experience has shown they will brutalize them.
It's just not a gay-friendly place, and I don't think it will be even if official policy changes. I don't know how to change that.
>Yet you're afraid to let them near your children, and afraid that they might make your children turn out just like them...
Absolutely not. I believe sexuality is inborn and that we have little control over it - I believe it is likely genetic.
I do not believe people can be "turned" gay. Every gay person I've ever asked (and I've had several gay friends over the years) has told me they did not choose to be gay, and I'm not surprised - I never chose to be heterosexual.
>Oh, so fucking girls is part of the scout program? Because that's what you're implying.
/leaders/, even though they may be out-of-touch with the adolescent issues of normal sexuality in youths, they are adults, and I have full confidence that even with the lack of understanding of heterosexual adolescence they'd be fine leaders, all else being equal.
"Fucking girls", as you put it, or, as I'd put it, dealing with normal adolescent sexuality, most certainly was a part of my Scouting experience. While not official "sex ed" type of discussions, most certainly there were discussions about sex while trudging along through the woods. I always got a laugh that my parents put me in Scouting because it was a "Good, Wholesome Activity", and yet I learned most of my cuss words, dirty jokes, and yes, about sex through Scouting.
>Unless you are saying that gay boys' sexual preferences have such far-reaching consequences that they cannot
>intermingle with straight guys and learn to start fires with rocks or kill bears or whatever. Which I can totally
>understand - I find it hard to understand what people who prefer blondes are saying when they talk to me, for instance.
I have no doubt that gay kids can learn to intermingle with straight guys and learn to start fires with rocks and all the other things that Scouting offers.
What I do doubt is that they will ever fit in to the Scouting environment. I also do not believe they will be adequately supported with the adolescent issues of growing up gay.
On reflection, I will note here that I don't really have a problem with gay Scout
Maybe if there were more homosexual Scout leaders there would be a better support base for homosexual Scouts. Something for me to think about.
>And you think being homosexual is abnormal. How about being chinese american? I that normal enough for you? 'Normal'
>is a subjective term and it is only your opposition to homosexuality that leads you to single out that one
>subset of society for discrimination.
I did not think it was necessary to say this on Slashdot, but for your benefit I will point out that I was using the word "normal" in a statistical sense. Homosexuality is not the normal condition. This is not to say it is not a natural condition, which of course it is.
>No it would be like going to a government funded model train club while black and expecting
>to build model trains with everyone else, instead of being told that black kids aren't normal enough to be model train engineers.
Except being black has no bearing on your ability to play with model trains, or anything else. Being homosexual has a large bearing on the ability of the Boy Scouts of America to guide you in the process of growing up to be a homosexual man.
>So you got that "having sex with females" merit badge? I only went through "Star" scout, but I don't recall a single scouting
>activity that depended on my ability to have the hots for women. Scouting is a place that has no need to reference sexual
>orientation at all. It has, collectively, no need or ability to affect the sexual orientation of its members.
>Why exactly it has decided to have the desire is beyond me.
Obviously there are no "having sex with females" merit badges. Nonetheless I remember having discussions about sex with my peers and with adult leaders in our troop. It wasn't like and official "sex ed" type of setting, it was a discussion about sex with a bunch of friends hiking through the woods. All on the up-and-up. As such, it helped me deal with questions about normal sexuality. I don't think the Scouting environment will ever foster this kind of environment for homosexuals.
>In the aftermath of the referenced court decision, they reflected upon their Christian values, and kicked the scouts to the curb.
That's wonderful. One of the largest, most respected, proven institutions of leadership and man-building in our country and you are happy to see it's demise. For all it's faults, you should be ashamed.
>Well, yes. Pretty plain you're a homopohobe.
I assure you, I am not afraid of gay people.
My best friend, who I grew up with and was in my scout troop, and was also the best man at my wedding, is gay.
>Yeah, I see they taught you some real fine lessons. I think you just made our point.
/excellent/ at what it does. I'm sorry that it can't be excellent at helping homosexual boys grow up to be homosexual men. Perhaps you could start an organization to cater to their needs.
And what point would that be? It's the truth. The Scouting Organization is an organization to help boys become normal men. This includes dealing with all the issues of normal adolescence encountered along the way. It collectively has no provision, ability, nor desire to help boys grow up to be homosexuals, or deal with homosexual issues of adolescence encountered along the way.
The BSA is
>Homosexual men are not the same as nor do they aspire to be women.
No shit, really? (rolls eyes)
I think my point was pretty plain. Scouting is a place to help boys grow up to be men. NORMAL men.
It has, collectively, no provision, ability, or desire to help them with growing up to be a homosexual man.
It would be like going to a model train club and expecting help to build radio controlled airplanes. It's not their forte.