About those anti-aviatoin newsgroups

Would you feel the same way if the BSA had a no blacks or no Jews policy
rather
than a no gays policy?

Well, Margy, if you are you asking if I would be upset that the Scouts were
banned from the schools for hypothetically banning Jewish and black members,
the answer is no. In your example, the Scouts (or any other group) would
quite deservedly have earned the wrath of the School Board and the Civil
Rights community by arbitrarily banning members based on skin color or
religion.

Apples and oranges.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:OEc0b.184590$uu5.34852@sccrnsc04...
[...] In your example, the Scouts (or any other group) would
quite deservedly have earned the wrath of the School Board and the Civil
Rights community by arbitrarily banning members based on skin color or
religion.

And therein lies the crux of the disagreement (contrary to what was said
earlier by someone else).

You apparently think that sexual preference is different from race, and is
not one that should be protected. Maybe you think it's some kind of option.
That's the classic religious right argument: "it's a lifestyle choice, and
they could change if they wanted to".

Well, that's just not true. Sexual "preference" doesn't mean the person has
decided to prefer one gender over another. It means that nature has decided
that they will prefer one gender over another. A gay didn't decide to be
gay any more than you decided to be heterosexual. The vast numbers of gay
people who have suffered years of self-inflicted psychological torment
because they do NOT want to be gay is about as clear evidence as anyone
could ask for that it's not a choice.

In any case, clearly religious belief IS a choice, and is protected. So
even if sexual preference were a choice, your objection to discrimination
against Jews is only consistent if you also object to discrimination against
gays.

Margy's question is very much apples and apples.

Pete

[...] In your example, the Scouts (or any other group) would
quite deservedly have earned the wrath of the School Board and the Civil
Rights community by arbitrarily banning members based on skin color or
religion.

And therein lies the crux of the disagreement (contrary to what was said
earlier by someone else).

You apparently think that sexual preference is different from race, and is
not one that should be protected. Maybe you think it's some kind of
option.

No, Peter, this has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is a lifestyle
"choice" or not. (I personally don't believe anyone would choose such a
difficult path for themselves.)

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).

I wouldn't want my Girl Scout daughter chaperoned overnight by a male troop
leader, either, for fear of what might happen. How is this any different
than having a homosexual Boy Scout leader?

THAT is an "apples and apples" comparison.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"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

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:bUp0b.200383$Ho3.26912@sccrnsc03...
....snip...

No, Peter, this has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is a
lifestyle
"choice" or not. (I personally don't believe anyone would choose such a
difficult path for themselves.)

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).


Actually there is nothing demonstrably harmful in sexual attraction either.
Attraction, arousal, and even orgasms do not in and of themselves harm the
persons experiencing them, regardless of the source of the stimulation. I
suspect that the real reason for the sometimes violent opposition to
homosexual Scout leaders, teachers, clergy, etc is not a fear of sexual
assault but rather the fear that young people will be exposed to positive
role models who happen to be gay, thus reinforcing the idea that it's no big
deal whether one's sexual partners of the same or opposite genders. Assume
that they are not having sex with the kids in the group, what difference
could the kids knowing the leader has a sex life with a member of the
opposite sex or with a member of the same sex matter? I think the debate
between whether homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or somehow biologically
determined is moot, except from an academic bio/psychological research
viewpoint, as the entire debate is based on the notion that it should
somehow MATTER who someone has their orgasms with. If everyone involved is
consenting, what possible difference could it make? As a parent, I could
care less if my daughter turns out straight, gay, or bisexual. All that
matters is that she is happy.

If everyone involved is
consenting, what possible difference could it make? As a parent, I could
care less if my daughter turns out straight, gay, or bisexual. All that
matters is that she is happy.

This conversation is about children who, by definition, cannot be
"consenting".

Or do you dispute this assertion to?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:OEc0b.184590$uu5.34852@sccrnsc04...
Would you feel the same way if the BSA had a no blacks or no Jews policy
rather
than a no gays policy?

Well, Margy, if you are you asking if I would be upset that the Scouts
were
banned from the schools for hypothetically banning Jewish and black
members,
the answer is no. In your example, the Scouts (or any other group) would
quite deservedly have earned the wrath of the School Board and the Civil
Rights community by arbitrarily banning members based on skin color or
religion.

How about the collegiate groups for blacks, women, Hispanics...? They're
heroes.

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:OEc0b.184590$uu5.34852@sccrnsc04...
Would you feel the same way if the BSA had a no blacks or no Jews
policy
rather
than a no gays policy?

Well, Margy, if you are you asking if I would be upset that the Scouts
were
banned from the schools for hypothetically banning Jewish and black
members,
the answer is no. In your example, the Scouts (or any other group)
would
quite deservedly have earned the wrath of the School Board and the Civil
Rights community by arbitrarily banning members based on skin color or
religion.

How about the collegiate groups for blacks, women, Hispanics...? They're
heroes.

Do they exclude members based on race, gender, etc.? And use public-school
facilities to meet?

Look, putting aside the legal question for a moment, there's nothing morally
unreasonable about a group of people organizing around a shared interest or
activity. But it doesn't work to declare every prejudice the group has as a
morally legitimate shared interest; for example, it would be immoral for
your local golf organization to declare that its shared interest is in
playing golf among white people, so that nonwhites can be excluded. In
reality, its shared activity is just playing golf, and the exclusion of
nonwhites would be a shameful prejudice (though legally permitted--as it
should be--if the group is private).

In the same way, if the central activity of the Boy Scouts were to get
together and worship deities, then their exclusion of atheists would be
morally unobjectionable. Or if the Scouts' central activity were to conduct
heterosexual orgies, then their exclusion of gay people would be morally
unobjectionable. But if instead their central activities are things like
tying knots and lighting campfires, and learning about civics and
leadership, then to exclude gays and atheists on the grounds that they're
inherently bad role models (which is the Scouts' official reason for the
exclusion--see their web site) is just as shamefully prejudiced as it would
be for the Scouts to exclude blacks and Jews on the grounds that *they* are
inherently bad role models.

--Gary

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:58:05 GMT, "Gary L. Drescher"
wrote:

In the same way, if the central activity of the Boy Scouts were to get
together and worship deities, then their exclusion of atheists would be
morally unobjectionable.

Then, Gary, it is morally unobjectionable: "On my honor I promise to
do my duty to God..." is the *oath* of a Scout. Likewise, "to keep
myself...morally straight" is also just as much a part of that oath.

By that reasoning, standing alone, no one should object to the Boy
Scouts. People don't seem to understand that the knot-tying, service
projects, and merit badges are an expression of that oath, the
*means*, not the end.

Rob