About those anti-aviatoin newsgroups

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:bUp0b.200383$Ho3.26912@sccrnsc03...
This has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that skin color or religious
preference is patently and demonstrably harmless, while sexual attraction
is
potentially and demonstrably harmful -- especially in groups of pre-teen
boys (and girls).

Skin color is patently harmless? Really? Ever heard of the Black Panthers?
Religious preference is harmless? Really? Funny...seems like a couple of
years ago, some VERY religious-minded folks destroyed the World Trade
Center.

Differences in skin color or religious preference have a GREAT potential for
causing conflict and harm. That potential need not be nearly as militant as
the examples I've given to do serious harm, either psychologically or
physically.

As far as sexual attraction being potentially and demonstrably harmful, I
suppose that depends on what you mean. If teenages are not properly
supervised, there is the potential for fraternization. However, I will tell
you this: there was a LOT more fraternization and a LOT less supervision
when I was a teenager at co-ed church retreats then when I was a teenager at
Boy Scout camping trips (and remember, I was in the Boy Scouts before it
occurred to anyone to ask someone if they were gay before letting them be in
the troop, either as a scout or a leader).

However, I fail to see what is inherently harmful about the fraternization.
Even the military is on pretty thin ice with their claim that romantic
involvements between servicemen can undermine the safety of the entire
group, and at least in their case they do have people shooting at them on a
regular basis.

I can't imagine what harm could come from a couple of gay boys in the same
Boy Scout troop having a romantic involvement (other than the usual problems
of immature teenagers being involved sexually, regardless of sexual
preference). At least you know they're not going to get pregnant.

I wouldn't want my Girl Scout daughter chaperoned overnight by a male
troop
leader, either, for fear of what might happen.

There were lots of women at the summer camp I went to when I was a Boy
Scout. For some reason, no funny business ever happened, nor was anyone
worried about mixed-gender leadership. Beyond that, as has been pointed out
multiple times already, you are more likely to find a heterosexual male
willing to prey on a teenage boy than you are to find a homosexual male
willing to do the same.

Your concern should be based on reality, not your existing prejudice and
lack of understanding of what it actually means to be homosexual.

Pete

"Trent Moorehead" wrote in message ...
The last
service I went to had us holding hands and singing "We shall overcome". This
dude essentially hijacked a church to hold gay rights rallies. Not my cup of
tea for a Sunday morning.

I'm not anti-gay, but I have to draw the line at lame-o gay ministers
though.

Not all gay ministers are lame-o. I can't recall Gretchen ever mentioning
sexuality in a sermon. She had more important topics. I most enjoyed
being invited to her house to view and have a theological discussion of
"The Life of Brian."

Of course, it was her (non-gay) replacement that we had to have defrocked
(an uncommon event for the UU ministry). Sounds like your congregation
should have throttled your minister.

"Newps" wrote in message news:SVs0b.202258$uu5.36211@sccrnsc04...

You'd think that. England had/has a national religion.

and not just England. Every major European power at the time had an
established religion.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..
National would be redundant. Establishment doesn't mean "creation" in
this
context, it means giving official recognition by the government.

And would not a law passed based solely on religious beliefs be "official
recognition"?

I agree that establishment doesn't mean creation in this context. That was
my point.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..
National would be redundant. Establishment doesn't mean "creation" in
this
context, it means giving official recognition by the government.

And would not a law passed based solely on religious beliefs be "official
recognition"?

I agree that establishment doesn't mean creation in this context. That was
my point.

Then I don't understand you point. The ammendement says congress may not
establish a religion. Do you think that the rule is limitted to a national religion or
congress establishing one for Maryland alone?

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..

Not all gay ministers are lame-o. I can't recall Gretchen ever
mentioning
sexuality in a sermon. She had more important topics. I most enjoyed
being invited to her house to view and have a theological discussion of
"The Life of Brian."

Of course, it was her (non-gay) replacement that we had to have defrocked
(an uncommon event for the UU ministry). Sounds like your congregation
should have throttled your minister.

I didn't mean to imply that all gay ministers were bad, just this one. It
didn't seem that anyone really objected to his sermons, so I'm not sure he
got put in his place. The place was so political, this may have been what
they wanted, I don't know.

I also should have mentioned that he couldn't sing either. I would
cringe when he would start butcherin' some "Old Negro Spiritual" or some
such. Just awful.

By the way, I'm more of a "Holy Grail" kinda guy.

-Trent

"Trent Moorehead" wrote in message ...

I also should have mentioned that he couldn't sing either. I would
cringe when he would start butcherin' some "Old Negro Spiritual" or some
such. Just awful.

The Unitarians have been murdering the classics for years. I cringe at some
of the lyrics in Singing the Living Tradition no matter how accomplished the
soloist.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...


You are getting hung up on the "national" vs. "local" (my fault for
capitalizing the word "national", I suppose), when in fact the real question
is whether the amendment prohibits simply the creation of a national
religion, or if it prohibits all lawmaking based solely on religion.

OK, I misunderstood, I thought you were trying to limit the definition, not expand it.
I am of the same opinion.

There were lots of women at the summer camp I went to when I was a Boy
Scout. For some reason, no funny business ever happened, nor was anyone
worried about mixed-gender leadership. Beyond that, as has been pointed
out
multiple times already, you are more likely to find a heterosexual male
willing to prey on a teenage boy than you are to find a homosexual male
willing to do the same.

I would say the odds of a woman "preying" upon a teenage boy are an order of
magnitude smaller than the reverse example (i.e.: A man preying on a teenage
girl.). According to my wife (a Girl Scout leader, BTW), most women just
ain't wired "that way". (I'll have to take her word for it.)

Men, on the other hand, I understand. It would be sheer folly to assume
that a man, left alone with a teenage girl, overnight, wouldn't be tempted.
Would most men ACT on this temptation? No, of course not. But I'd bet you
a hundred bucks that a higher percentage of men than women would... This is
the model to follow when considering leaving a gay man in charge of a Boy
Scout troop, IMHO.

Finally, I'm totally baffled by your statement that "you are more likely to
find a heterosexual male willing to prey on a teenage boy than you are to
find a homosexual male willing to do the same." In what way would a
HETEROsexual male be likely to prey upon a teenage boy?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:wIt0b.201425$YN5.140717@sccrnsc01...
In what way would a
HETEROsexual male be likely to prey upon a teenage boy?

That would be a pedaphile.

They are sickos that don't think along lines that normal-thinking people do.
That would include GAY normal-thinking people.