Daily RunDown: Boy Scouts declare war on trees!
Aside from hating gays, the boy scouts also like setting wildfires and torching thousands of acres of land! - Associated Press
Nancy Pelosi’s womb is advancing the gay agenda, one disco-ball fetus at a time. - Shakespeare's Sister via Wonkette
An excellent REPUBLICAN entry on Lee-Jackson Day. - Bearing Drift via Vivian J. Paige
Let's see how long it takes the "dooms dayers" to hit the panic button. - AFP
Have a great weekend everyone...
13 comments:
Your attacking the boy scouts?
"Your attacking the boy scouts?"
You're.
And yes, I am, they openly discriminate against homosexuals.
Honestly, I would trust a gay man being my sons troop leader as much as I would trust a straight man being my daughters girl scout leader; not very much. Sure, not
all gay men are pedophile just like not all straight guys are but I definitely would not put my children in that type of situation where there is a realistic possibility.
I suppose you don't let you kids get in a car either for fear of an accident? I guess you don't let them go outside for fear they could catch the flu, or pnemonia? etc. etc. etc. etc. There's a "realistic possibility" that any member of ANY gender is a pedophile.
That wasn't a very intelligent comment, Wilton.
Sure there is a realistic possibly that my children could get into a car accident or get the flu (although you don’t get the flu from going outside but I’ll argue the point anyway); in those situations you have to weight the cost versus the benefits and if applicable, minimize your cost as much as possible.
It's obvious that you could get into a car accident while driving a car, but I could say with reasonable confidences that cars are more beneficial than they are hazardous To help manage the risks that are involved in driving a car we wear seat belts and have air bags, etc. The same is true with going outside, there are many negative things that could happen but the positives outweigh the negatives and we do our best to manage the risk.
If we were to weight the cost versus the benefits in allowing openly gay leaders in the boy scouts, what benefit would that provide the boys? Personally, I see only harm in that scenario; the only person that would benefit is the gay scout leader. And of course, anyone could be a pedophile, even the “Mr. All-American” next door that drives a BMW, has an extremely attractive wife, and more money than he knows what to do with and it’s sad because he’ll probably go undetected, but again, you have to manage you risk as much as possible.
"(although you don’t get the flu from going outside but I’ll argue the point anyway)"
I was using it as an example.
"If we were to weight the cost versus the benefits in allowing openly gay leaders in the boy scouts, what benefit would that provide the boys? "
That's like saying "what benefits did whites get when blacks were free from slavery," or "what benefits did men get when women were allowed the right to vote?", etc. etc. Ignorant. Ignorant. Ignorant!!!
Again, with those two arguments if you were to weigh the costs versus the benefits then you would see that overall, the pros for freeing the slaves and letting women vote significantly outweigh any cons. Granted, you may find certain groups or individuals that would argue there are more pros for not freeing the slaves or not letting women vote but they are in the fringe and in no way represent popular opinion.
Tell me, how would allowing gay leaders in boy scouts advance “the cause of the scouting”? What would the boys and well as the organization as a whole gain? What could they potentially lose? On the same token, what do gay men that would like to become leaders in scouting gain if they were allowed to join and what adverse consequences could arise towards them? Any pros are eclipsed by the cons... Personal attacks such as “Ignorant. Ignorant. Ignorant” aren’t necessary; prove me wrong, don’t insult me.
Oh? According to whom? Discrimination is discrimination. You can't just decide who is and who isn't likely to commit certain crimes. Oh, but wait, that's part of how the Republicans show their patriotism now, isn't it? Burn the Constitution!!!!
There is a huge difference between distinguishing differences and outright discrimination. For example, I wouldn’t want a Muslim teaching my Sunday school class, not because I’m discriminator against Muslims but because of the apparent differences between Islam and Christianity and the inherent conflict of interest.
If discrimination is discrimination then I discriminate against gays, straights (I wouldn’t let a straight man be my daughters Girl Scout leader), Muslims and anyone else with a conflict of interest in any given situation...I’m not really sure what burning the Constitution has to do with allowing gay leaders in the Boy Scout so I’m not going to comment on that.
"I’m not really sure what burning the Constitution has to do with allowing gay leaders in the Boy Scout so I’m not going to comment on that. "
It's blatant discrimination, that's why. You forget the fact that the overwhelmingly VAST majority of those who sexually abuse children related to the child.
Hm, maybe I should forbid you from having daughters?
Anyway, I've said all I have to say on this. I don't believe in pre judging people, ever - not to mention I'm very tired, lol. :)
I'd have to say the point goes to Wilton in that debate.
Well, considering that you're a Conservative, that's to be expected.
Yes it is, but that wasn't so much a political debate as it was wilton expressing why he and many others would be uncomfortable with gay leadership in the Boy Scouts.
Post a Comment