Re: Homosexual Scouting
David B. O'Donnell (EL406006@BROWNVM.BITNET)
Tue, 28 May 1991 17:57:40 EDT
On Tue, 28 May 1991 10:34:12 CDT you said:
>"Discrimination" is the basis of *ALL* organizations! People with *like*
>interests seek out other people with *like* interests. They *exclude*
>people with *unlike* interests.
Discrimination based on sexual preference is illogical. If you force each
and every person associated with scouting to fit your narrow, white-picket-
fence view of life, then you should bill the BSA as a "living fantasy",
for it is a sad delusion to think that the world follows your view. Does
not BSA seek to prepare its followers for life in the *real* world?
>What people do with their *own* lives is their *own* business -- until
>that "business" infringes on someone else's life. It seems that anyone
>telling me that I *have* to associate with someone or admit someone to my
>group which has limited, clearly defined purposes, and a set of rules
>designed to protect the minor members of that group from potential abuse
>by people with *unlike* interests is completely out of line.
No one says you *MUST* associate with the gay person. It's your right to
show your petty prejudice, and to deprive your child(ren) of a chance to
learn how things really are. The question is, who has the problem? The
gay person, who is merely existing, or you, who recoils in fear at something
you don't understand--or want to understand?
>Should colleges admit students who do not have the basic skills necessary
>to complete the work? Should they refuse admission to qualified students
>whose parents are unable to pay? Isn't that discrimination according to
Unfortunately, yes, these ARE examples of discrimination. However, someone
can LEARN the skills necessary to succeed in college. And through financial
aid, those who are unable to pay due to socio-economic reasons can rise above
the artificially imposed limits. In the case of Scouting, the organization
actively seeks to hurt those who do not fit its narrowminded view of reality,
and would deny its members the *ability* to learn about the wider reality.
>Should Girl Scouts be forced to sleep in tents with unrelated adult male
>leaders who are more interested in them as sex objects than Girl Scouts?
>Isn't that discriminating against those men?
Hardly. If these men are interested in the female scouts solely as objects
for sexual lust, then they are sick and should be removed. And if you think
that every gay man exists solely to sleep with "innocent" boys, then your
perception or reality is even more skewed than that of the organization
itself. Frankly, I am insulted by your insinuation.
>In other words, where do you draw the line? At what point is it acceptable
>for someone else's *rights* to infringe on yours or mine?
Yes, exactly: Is it your *right* to force your child to grow up ignorant?
What if your child happens to BE gay? (I can see the shocked Ozzie-and-
Harriets now) Do you have a *right* to damage their mental health by
preaching vile lies to him or her? Do you have a *right* to deny a human
being the chance to offer his or her talents, wisdom, and experience to
children solely because he or she loves someone of the same sex? Who is
infringing upon the rights of whom? Or, to be pragmatic, which does the
>This is why we elect people to make and enforce laws and rules for "the
>common good." Every group has the right to do what it wants to do as long
>as it lives within these laws and rules. The person in the court case did
>not have to make an issue out of the fact that he was gay *unless* his
>rights as a homosexual were *more* important to him than the principles of
>Scouting and the rights of the minor children in the program. This person
>should be banned from Scouting on the basis of his selfish attitude alone!
I don't know the fine details of the case, but I know that were I in the
man's place, I would not hide the truth either. I would rather be HONEST
and RESPONSIBLE than a lying, craven person. Would you and your organization
rather have someone who is honest and responsible, willing to face the
inevitable questions and answer truthfully, or someone who would rather lie
and deceive? It seems to me your attitude is far more selfish.
>The fact that you (or anyone else) can tell me who I *have* to associate
>with in my leisure time is not a liberal attitude -- it is the worse kind
>of fascist elitism!
As I have said elsewhere, you are welcome to take your prejudice elsewhere,
if your organization does not fit your preconceived notions of seemliness.
I just hope you are ready to Answer when the questions are asked. Will
you tell the truth, or lie?
Get your laws OFF of my BODY,
OUT of my BEDROOM,
and AWAY from my ART!
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City