LGBT people make up about 3.7% of the country, or about…11.6 million people. How many people have sued companies in the US for not serving gay “weddings?” Less than a hundred? Oh yeah they’re totally representative.
With all due respect Ishii, those demonstrations and protests were performed by the STUDENTS in the Catholic school. The mayor of Seattle is also straight. None of these people are representative of the “gay community.” And no offense, but your discussion of the so-called “secular leftist gay agenda” sounds more like a Rush Limbaugh rant than a decent attempt at dialogue, and it has no basis in reality.
The vast majority of gay people want nothing more than to be able to marry their partners in an “affirming” (read: liberal Protestant or Jewish, NOT Catholic) church or legally with no church involvement of any kind and then live quietly somewhere, without needing to make any form of spectacle. They are not loud, they do not seek attention, and they most certainly do not attempt to force anyone else to believe anything else.
There is a reason that many liberals roll their eyes at FOX News and conservative media in general; they overreact to EVERYTHING. A single Perez Hilton-type gay person suing a company suddenly represents a pandemic of gay people wanting to kidnap your children to Europe where they’ll magically become gay or something. A person hugging Obama suddenly becomes a Kenyan socialist. A person who forgets their flag pin suddenly hates America (but only if they’re a Democrat).
If you really want to know how gay people think, stop reading the news stories and conservative media hype and go to a gay pride festival (NOT a parade, a festival). Ask them yourself.
I don’t think anyone thinks the “loud and proud” contingent is representative of most gay or Lesbian people, but with the bully pulpit and attorneys, they are truly wreaking havoc, not simply on the individual businesses, but in creating controversies, demonstrations, having mayors of cities tell private businesses “We don’t want your kind…” not for doing anything that persecutes gays, but for saying they believe in traditional marriage as did the CEO of Chik Fil A. Ditto with the recent Duck Dynasty controversy. It’s not a matter of let’s discuss this issue and point out why you disagree with the man, it’s GET HIM OFF THE AIR!!! That’s not the American way of handling disagreements but it’s sadly a very common tactic of certain interest groups.
Please don’t take this analogy wrong because I not equating the behavior, but it’s only a tiny minority of Muslims who engage in terrorism. The vast majority of Muslims are kind, family oriented, hard working folks. But the few who do engage in this behavior not only taint the entire religion, they create a lot of problems for innocent people. Thus when I hear the word “Muslim” I get an immediate negative reaction and when I hear the word GLAAD or other such groups, I react negatively. So the fact that only a few participate is irrelevant when those few can cause such problems.
I think most Americans have a strong sense of fairness and only a tiny minority would engage in some kind of overt discrimination, actual hate speech or physical harm when it comes to encountering gays and Lesbians. I think most people think it’s fair that gays and Lesbians have the same basic rights and access accorded to the rest of us. That’s why the “bakery suers” create such bad will. It’s not as if someone is trying to access lifesaving treatment and is turned down for being gay. Why not walk down the street to another bakery? If gays and Lesbians truly want to live and let live, THEY would pressure these activists to find another hill to die on, instead of forcing the closure of a small business.
Anyway I’ve often wondered why those representing various interest groups don’t tell the loudmouths to put a cork in it because they are NOT helping their cause at all. That goes for the Jesse Jacksons, the Perez Hilton’s and also some who support the Conservative side of things.
I do not like it because it is making an issue where there is no issue. This should be a local Troop/Pack decision, like how much religion should be interjected when the sponsor is a Church. For me, it is moot. If someone want to say they are “gay” at a young age, then they will hear Catholic teaching on the subject within the context of the Scouting program, as will the other boys.
Thta’s my point, SMGS. The folks who are trying to transform our society are in the minority - but they have a great deal of power in media and law. And in our pop culture as well.
Oh, here we go now with the dreaded “rush Limbaugh” comparison. Why not throw in Sean Hannity and Fox news while you’re at it? Furthermore, I think I know the mayor of my city. The mayor elect Murray is openly gay and cheered on the students protesting outside the cathedral - trying to “change catholic teaching.”
Maybe, but it is the loud minority - allied with the secular left that seeks to transform society.
*** Ad hominem alert ***
I work with quite a few of them. I could relay a few stories but for a variety of reasons I will refrain from doing so.
[LEFT]Tessier said he felt as though the BSA was portraying a negative image. “You’re openly gay and that’s never going to happen and because you’re gay, you’re not good enough,” he explained.
Tessier and his Bethesda-Chevy Chase Boy Scout Troop held a demonstration earlier this year at the National Capital Area Council of Boy Scouts, demanding that openly gay youth be admitted to the BSA. His older brother was also in the organization.
“At the time, he couldn’t tell them I’m openly gay. This is something I can do today,” Tessier said.
Next month, Tessier will become one of the organization’s first openly gay Eagle Scouts.[/LEFT]
I remember a conversation I had with someone identifying as Catholic, who was very insistent that “we” as Catholics are required to oppose discrimination against Gay people in all places and situations. When I asked this individual if that included renting the apartment above us to a cohabiting homosexual couple and welcoming the very flamboyant open homosexual to work in our small family business, I was told “Yes, of course”. It’s one of the reasons I’ve never subscribed to the belief that a Catholic is a Catholic is a Catholic.
My questions/concerns remain. What does it mean to be an openly gay youth? And what if other boys no longer wish to bunk/sleep with gay child? Will this be respected or will they be forced to do something they are not comfortable with?
It just means that the boy told others he is homosexual.
And what if other boys no longer wish to bunk/sleep with gay child? Will this be respected or will they be forced to do something they are not comfortable with?
That is answered in the BSA FAQ:
“Each unit’s leadership along with their committee will be responsible for working with their parents to determine appropriate sleeping arrangements. This is consistent with current practices that allow for unit leaders, in consultation with parents, to use their discretion to ensure the safety and comfort of the youth members in their charge. In the past, there have been a variety of issues that required these conversations and this will follow that process. The training materials will reflect this direction.”
I have some visibility of what happened here and the change was instigated and executed by those within the organization; not from without. The BSA resisted influence from outside and it came from both directions. Remember the So. Baptists threatened to withdraw all their units if any change was made in the policy. No, this change was really done within the organization and by vote of the organization out of a concern for the boys.
I could be cautiously optimistic about this change. My hope is that Pack Leaders and others in positions of authority make it clear that sexuality, sexual activity and sexual orientation are irrelevant to scouting. No Scout should be questioned or shunned or assumed he’s gay or straight and no Scout should feel compelled to discuss his sexuality.
My fear is that someone will make this an issue, make statements about being “out” and waiting for the reaction. Or just as bad, another Scout will bait or try to get a rise out of another Scout whom he believes is gay, thus creating a problem. I hope I’m wrong about this but other similar opportunities to create dissent where it needs not occur concern me. While the average Scout is not an activist regarding these matters, it only takes one to create discord–and I mean on both sides of the issue.
Of course statistically the majority of boys in Scouting haven’t reached puberty so hopefully will not be an issue.
I like DADT…never figured out why it was opposed in the military or in Scouting. As I said previously, my cousin went all the way to Eagle without a problem. Perhaps some suspected but in neither he nor his Scoutmaster making it an issue, both he and the troop were spared unnecessary problems.
No. What we do know is that the feared mass exodus of Scouts did not occur because of the policy; had that of happened, we would all have known it. Some individual churches dropped their charters but, for the most part, others down the street picked them up.
The BSA had been losing 3-6% per year in membership (mainly due to a more sedate population and competition with other activities to choose from)
This year a number of things hit at once that could determine membership growth:
*]The membership policy change
*]A substantial increase in fees
*]Mandatory training in a lot of councils for adult members
*]The ongoing competition of other activities
[/LIST]So when the year end numbers do come out, we still won’t know for sure why any change in numbers took place.
If I had to guess; my guess would be that we don’t see a significant decrease in youth membership compared to previous years but we see a drop off in adult membership. Adults who were just registered to be registered will drop because of the policy change, mandatory training requirements or the increase in membership fees.
The problem with DADT wasn’t necessarily the policy, but rather that it was selectively applied, and it thus led to massive blackmail attempts. If NO ONE was allowed to mention anything about any romantic partner they’d ever had in their entire life, DADT would be fine. But because it only applied to gay recruits/officers, a fellow soldier finding out about the secret picture their gay troop member had in their belongings could then use it to extract all sorts of concessions (since the release of the photo, even if done by someone other than the gay person themselves, automatically led to a military discharge). It led to an extraordinarily stressful situation where straight soldiers were talking about their families all the time, and the ones not discussing the issue were caught between lying and looking suspicious.
I’d imagine there’d be a similar issue on a smaller scale with the Boy Scouts, since pre-policy, any troop member could viciously remove another Boy Scout by finding out about their sexual orientation, even if that Scout was not open about it. This was especially vicious since the Boy Scouts already required celibacy, so the Scout would be removed merely for their attractions and never for their behavior.
Thanks for the insight. I had a lot of contact with troops through an organization that sent packages and correspondence. Those who even mentioned the gay straight thing indicated that it was a not too well kept secret who was gay or Lesbian. Everyone I was in contact with had a live and let live approach. The only time it became an issue was when a superior would prey upon a subordinate. Now that DADT is gone, the superior cannot be threatened with exposure. I hope this doesn’t embolden them to predatory behavior. Again this is a major reason I hope they do not allow gay/Lesbian Scoutmasters as the authority figure, whether a teacher, priest, coach etc has a huge amount of power over the child. I’m curious if the repeal of the ban on gay scouts will require more ‘safe practices’ to be instituted with respect to the BSA. I know in our Parish, our priest could NEVER be alone with a child or children due to these procedures and prohibitions.
I doubt it. I mean, would you say that heterosexual military superiors are “emboldened” to rape by not being able to be outed as straight anymore? I’d say they’re more emboldened by a super-bravado male atmosphere and power trips.
Also, I’m not concerned at all about Scoutmasters for that reason. I don’t support gay Scoutmasters, because I don’t support having role models for kids who live a blatantly immoral life, but there would no absolutely no increase of molestation if gay people were Scoutmasters. Straight and gay men commit molestation at the same rates. There is no gay/pedophilia or gay/hebephilia link whatsoever.
No, but the threat of being “outed” as homosexual and thus to be subjected to a dishonorable discharge is a pretty good defense. When it’s a gay or straight preying upon a subordinate it’s a matter of ‘he said/she said’ and the superior officer tends to have the upper hand without this potential threat to the superior’s career. Sexual assault in the military has been and probably will continue to be a problem. I don’t think the repeal of DADT is a positive with respect to this aspect of military life although as you’ve noted, DADT unjustly ruined or compromised the careers of some dedicated troops…I have no doubt of that.
As to your second comment, actually this is incorrect. The percentage of predatory behavior in gays is higher than heterosexuals. That in sheer numbers the amounts might be similar ignores the reality that the vast number of sexual predators are heterosexuals because most predators are males and most males are heterosexual.
Percentages though tell a different story. When I became Catholic many asked me how I could join a church that was full of ‘pedophiles’ and having done my research and having had a lot of encounters and relationships with gays, I knew it was not pedophiles but predatory homosexuals. That the abuse scandal was almost 100% gay priests did not surprise me one bit as the priesthood was a convenient hiding place for gays back in the day.
Gays do not commit predatory behavior at any higher rate by any means. The only statistics that “prove” that make the claim entirely by the gender of the children, which means nothing. The sexual orientations, both identified (claimed orientation) and exemplified (expressed orientation such as gender of partner(s)), are equally likely to abuse children when adjusted for population.
OK you’ve got my head spinning. If an adult male preys upon children and all of the children are males do we not conclude he is gay? I think the example that comes to mind is the horrifying case of Jerry Sandusky…who was married and who denied his egregious actions over a number of years. The priests who preyed upon youth almost invariably preyed upon boys. I believe the priests were gay, not just sexual predators, else there would be more female children being impacted?