Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then your logic could be applied to pedophiles in that they're attracted to children. Should they stand up and scream "I Love Children and Am Proud of It! Accept me!!!" Or arsonists screaming "I Love Setting Things on Fire Because I Was Born This Way! Embrace Me!" Or do we seek to adjust their behavior through therapy, and that failing, remove them from interaction with general society, but in any case we do not accept or encourage them to act on their impulses.
Your argument fails.
You either are or want to be gay for whatever reason or misarrangement of chemicals occured in the womb. Fine. Don't push it on the rest of us by seeking to change our organizations you really have nothing to do with. Let children be children, and let them learn to cope with the world as it is, and that includes BSA as it has existed all along. Don't like it? Build something better.
The problem with your argument is that paedophiles and arsonists are NOT born that way.
The Boy Scouts have been pushed into changing who they are and will just fade away. Sure, it will have some people join it, but it is no longer what it was to millions of boys and their fathers over the last 100 years. I have nothing against gay people but I don't agree with their lifestyle and think this is just another push to normalize gay behavior. So be it. Next will be an attack by the gay community via the state on churches or any other private group that does not embrace the gay lifestyle or endorse it.
The Boy Scouts would have faded away anyway. Nobody in this day and age needs to know how to make knots or bugling or basketry. If they want to stay relevant and au courant, they have to adapt.
The Boy Scouts would have faded away anyway. Nobody in this day and age needs to know how to make knots or bugling or basketry. If they want to stay relevant and au courant, they have to adapt.
The problem with your argument is that paedophiles and arsonists are NOT born that way.
So these are learned behaviors? Or preferences? Not irresistable, hard-wired behavioral defects further motivated by the pursuit of some kind of pleasure? Hmmm, interesting point you make... You're firm in this argument?
So these are learned behaviors? Or preferences? Not irresistable, hard-wired behavioral defects further motivated by the pursuit of some kind of pleasure? Hmmm, interesting point you make... You're firm in this argument?
What does it really much matter? You attributed an "argument" (you claimed that his argument failed) to another poster that that poster did not make. Nowhere did TheDragonslayer argue that if something is natural or if someone is born that way then it must be encouraged and accepted.
I've never understood the need of the social conservative to equate that which is natural with that which is moral (or that which is unnatural with that which is immoral).
The Boy Scouts would have faded away anyway. Nobody in this day and age needs to know how to make knots or bugling or basketry. If they want to stay relevant and au courant, they have to adapt.
I don't think that's true. Leadership is always relevant. Scouts explore career interests. They learn about nature. They learn to work toward goals and to become independently confident. Plus they do fun stuff, outside (duh). Because of scouting I'm very conscious about not littering or polluting the environment.
Back in the 80-90s the big push was to become inclusive to all religious backgrounds (except atheists apparently). But still the leaders adjusted to the idea that "scouting welcomes people of all religions" that was really difficult for some people. They adapted, scouting didn't die. People who are in scouts love it and they will soon figure out that nothing will change except now someone can say they are gay and not get kicked out--not like that happened much anyway.
I don't think that's true. Leadership is always relevant. Scouts explore career interests. They learn about nature. They learn to work toward goals and to become independently confident. Plus they do fun stuff, outside (duh). Because of scouting I'm very conscious about not littering or polluting the environment.
Back in the 80-90s the big push was to become inclusive to all religious backgrounds (except atheists apparently). But still the leaders adjusted to the idea that "scouting welcomes people of all religions" that was really difficult for some people. They adapted, scouting didn't die. People who are in scouts love it and they will soon figure out that nothing will change except now someone can say they are gay and not get kicked out--not like that happened much anyway.
No, I don't think that happened very often, but certainly many closeted gay boys like me up and quit the scouts because we didn't feel wanted.
The Boy Scouts would have faded away anyway. Nobody in this day and age needs to know how to make knots or bugling or basketry. If they want to stay relevant and au courant, they have to adapt.
Meh. No idea how much this is practiced in the US, but back in decadent Scandinavia, scouting was about getting the young'uns out in nature. Because while as a leader you can preach leadership and responsibility and the importance of having your kit squared away and being able to pull your own weight, nature will teach it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're firm in this argument?