Advertise here: Contact FM.


BSA lobby? First floor, no charge.
July 26, 2006 7:28 AM   RSS feed for this thread Subscribe

Newsfilter: While Philadelphia officials dispute with a local chapter of the Boys Scouts of America over its use of taxpayer-subsidized, rent-free property, despite a policy of open discrimination, the Republican-controlled federal government discusses legislation that would make it illegal for taxpayers to withdraw funding from any youth organization, including the Boy Scouts of America, regardless of its activities or stated policies.
posted by Blazecock Pileon (194 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

the Republican-controlled federal government discusses legislation that would make it illegal for taxpayers to withdraw funding from any youth organization, including the Boy Scouts of America, regardless of its activities or stated policies.

Did you read it? Because that isn't what the Bill says.
posted by dios at 7:38 AM on July 26, 2006


What, in your considered opinion, would be a fairer rendering of the bill's official wording into the vernacular?
posted by little miss manners at 7:45 AM on July 26, 2006


No action has been taken on the Senate version of the bill, and the House version of the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology on Apr 11, 2005. I wouldn't expect to ever see this bill again.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:50 AM on July 26, 2006 [1 favorite]


It's an equal access bill. It is saying that whatever funding or faciliites are made available, have to be made equally available to the any organization described under part B of subtitle II of title 36, United States Code, that is intended to serve individuals under the age of 21 years. Thus, the bill has a very specific purpose and is limited in scope.

It no where says that it is "illegal" "to withdraw funding from any youth organization" "regardless of its activities or stated policies." That language... which is the key to the soapboxing of the post.... is no where in the bill
posted by dios at 7:52 AM on July 26, 2006


I'm somehow less than surprised to see Frist's name adorning this particular bit of legislation. His office long ago stopped responding to my (increasingly angry and occasionally incoherent) emails, after realizing I wasn't a constituent, but damn, do I ever hate this man.

Also, on preview: I'm confused, dios.

No Federal law (including any rule, regulation, directive, instruction, or order) shall be construed to limit any Federal agency from providing any form of support for a youth organization (including the Boy Scouts of America or any group officially affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America) that would result in that Federal agency providing less support to that youth organization (or any similar organization chartered under the chapter of title 36, United States Code, relating to that youth organization) than was provided during each of the preceding 4 fiscal years.

That doesn't read like an equal opportunity bill; it reads like Frist trying to shore up an organization being actively sieged for anti-equal-opportunity practices.
posted by Mayor West at 7:54 AM on July 26, 2006


No action has been taken on the Senate version of the bill, and the House version of the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology on Apr 11, 2005. I wouldn't expect to ever see this bill again.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:50 AM CST on July 26


That are rarely is important in these posts, monju_bosatsu. In pretty every post on Metafilter that deals with a piece of legislation, the legislation is (a) mischaracterized by stating it means something it doesn't, (b) overstated to suggest that it is important when it isn't, (c) falsely suggested that this is something that is law or likely to be law when it is a stillborn piece of legislation, or (d) all of the above.
posted by dios at 7:54 AM on July 26, 2006 [3 favorites]


Humour me, if you would: does the absence of any "unless they kick out the homos" clause imply that they can, in fact, kick out the homos without repercussion?
posted by Zozo at 7:55 AM on July 26, 2006


When I was growing up, the Scouts were a wonderful program.

At this point, they have been hijacked by the Mormon Church. They are the youth arm of that organization. The Mormons have taken control simply by having the policy that EVERY boy in the Church will join the Scouts; they've taken over by sheer numbers. All Scout policies are, ultimately, directed from Utah.

I don't suggest putting your kids in this program anymore. It once had a lot going for it, but as always, religion screws up everything it touches.
posted by Malor at 7:55 AM on July 26, 2006


How do you interpret this portion of it, then:


(1) SUPPORT FOR YOUTH ORGANIZATIONS- No Federal law (including any rule, regulation, directive, instruction, or order) shall be construed to limit any Federal agency from providing any form of support for a youth organization (including the Boy Scouts of America or any group officially affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America) that would result in that Federal agency providing less support to that youth organization (or any similar organization chartered under the chapter of title 36, United States Code, relating to that youth organization) than was provided during each of the preceding 4 fiscal years.


To my untrained eyes this does indicate that there are certain restrictions being placed on the interpretation of existing federal law, namely that any existing federal law applicable in the relevant context cannot be interpreted in such a way as would result in a reduction in the amount of financial support given the group in comparison to the previous four years.

Is this interpretation accurate?

posted by little miss manners at 8:00 AM on July 26, 2006


whoops, needed to close the block quote after the first paragraph.
posted by little miss manners at 8:01 AM on July 26, 2006 [1 favorite]


No action has been taken on the Senate version of the bill, and the House version of the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology on Apr 11, 2005. I wouldn't expect to ever see this bill again.

I sure hope you are right. Still, it was introduced by someone with aspirations for a presidential run in 2008, and with the current backlash against civil rights, at times this seems like another example of throwing bills against the wall to see what sticks.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:01 AM on July 26, 2006


Malor - is this just in utah, or do you have some nationwide data to back this up?
posted by Pastabagel at 8:04 AM on July 26, 2006


How many youth programs received federal funding over the last 4 fiscal years? This bill will not, as you imply in your post, result in federal funds for Hitler Youth, Kids of the Michigan Militia, or the KKKKK (Ku Klux Klan Kids Klub - which, to my knowledge, doesn't exist, but I had fun making up the name).

Fo some, of course, the distinction between those groups and the Boy Scouts of America is minimal.

Personal aside: I had a pleasant time with the BSA, but that was due to the good fortune of landing with a troop that wasn't hung up on religious or the pre-military aspects of the organization. For me, it amounted to lots and lots of unsupervised fun in the woods with knives and fire. What more could a boy ask for?
posted by aladfar at 8:08 AM on July 26, 2006


There couldn't possibly be ANY unintended consequences if this bill passes.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:08 AM on July 26, 2006


For me, it amounted to lots and lots of unsupervised fun in the woods with knives and fire. What more could a boy ask for?
posted by aladfar at 11:08 AM EST on July 26 [+fave] [!]


We did the same thing! Except instead of joining the boy scouts, we got hold of a friend's older brother's copy of the anarchist's cookbook.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:21 AM on July 26, 2006


I was curious exactly which "Yough Organizations" were covered under the bill, so I looked up USC Title 36, Subsection 2, Part B. Turns out they are listed specifically by name, so it would take an act of Congress to get the KKKKK included.

I did see the National Federation of Music Clubs listed, so if you're in a band and need free practice space, create a local chapter of the NFoMC and head over to the nearest Federal property where the Boy Scouts meet. Of course, you'd need to "intended to serve individuals under the age of 21 years", but if you've got band members that your (or heck, even play at all-ages shows), I bet you'd have a case.
posted by ewagoner at 8:22 AM on July 26, 2006


The Bill only applies to specific groups that are specifically chartered by Federal Law.

Title 36 of the United States Code includes the following organizations to which this bill could apply. Now the bill conditions its application to organizations in the above-linked list that are "intended to serve individuals under the age of 21." From that list, this Bill would *probably* apply to the following organizations (I can't say for sure because I am not familiar with all of the groups and who they intended to serve):

CHAPTER 301--BIG BROTHERS--BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA
CHAPTER 309--BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA
CHAPTER 311--BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF AMERICA
CHAPTER 709--FUTURE FARMERS OF AMERICA
CHAPTER 803--GIRL SCOUTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CHAPTER 1305--LITTLE LEAGUE BASEBALL, INCORPORATED

As worded, this "bill" would apply to all of the above group equally and it says that two things can't be done:
(1) the "support" of these groups by a federal agency cannot be reduced below anything that was extended during the last 4 years (support is defined: its not referring to finanical support, it specifically refers to holding meetings on federal property and hosting offical events); and
(2) equal access to any public forum.

These restrictions apply to all the groups above. It is an equal access bill. The federal government chartered these groups, and it is trying to ensure these groups have a equal access to public facilities that it has had in the past or could have in the future.
posted by dios at 8:25 AM on July 26, 2006


I've said this before, but I'm happy to repeat it: most of the gay people I know, I met through the Scouting program. Knee socks and sashes, people.
posted by ColdChef at 8:28 AM on July 26, 2006 [1 favorite]


aladfar: Not to derail, but Ku Klux Klan Kidz Klub would be better, maybe.
posted by raysmj at 8:29 AM on July 26, 2006


Ah, the finite listing makes it much less noxious than it appeared at first. Thanks for the clarification.

It still seems like the sort of thing that makes me look askance at any politician who'd sponsor it -- choice of priorities, etc. -- but nothing nearly so dramatic as implied. Again, much appreciated.
posted by little miss manners at 8:29 AM on July 26, 2006


dios,

(1) It says "Support described ... shall include" meeting space and hosting events. If this was all Frist meant, would it not say "is limited to" instead of "shall include"?

(2) You forgot to include "limited public forum, or nonpublic forum" along with the public forums.
posted by ewagoner at 8:32 AM on July 26, 2006


I'll sue.
posted by ewkpates at 8:38 AM on July 26, 2006


I also have good memories of my time in BSA. Our troop focused on outdoor activities, and we camped a lot. That's what BSA should be. Religion belongs in church, militancy belongs in the military.
Discrimination is bullshit.
It is perfectly reasonable to require that an organization receiving taxpayer monies adhere to higher, non-discriminatory standards of conduct.
If the BSA does not like that requirement, they are free to seek funding from the private sector. Considering the millions of boys who've passed through the organization in the past hundred years, I seriously doubt the BSA would have trouble finding sympathetic citizens with deep pockets.
Enough already.
There are many, many more pressing issues that demand the attention of Congress. That they are wasting time formulating federal legislation to help the BSA beat the city of Philadelphia is another example of just how little they seem to comprehend the priorities of their office.
posted by cows of industry at 8:41 AM on July 26, 2006


the "support" of these groups by a federal agency cannot be reduced below anything that was extended during the last 4 years

by referring to federal rules or regulations ... saying "we ran out of money to maintain the park" would still be allowed

in the case of philadelphia, under this law they probably could not refuse to continue to lease the property to the boy scouts ... however they could sell the property to a 3rd private party who could turn it into condos, a parking lot or whatever ... or announce they were changing it into an office building for governmental purposes ... in both cases, the property would no longer be a "forum"

in short, it's really one of those laws that doesn't do much of anything
posted by pyramid termite at 8:49 AM on July 26, 2006


If government funding means giving your organization to the thought police, by all means go private. And before anyone gets huffy, that sword cuts both ways. Meanwhile,whether their fears were accurate or not ,a lot of parents would not want a gay scoutmaster working with their boys. That would put the Scouts between a rock and a hard place, I think-if they ended their policy in order to keep or obtain funding they would lose a lot of their support base. That is simply a fact.

Meanwhile I know of several church organizations that have developed their own versions of scouting programs. Our own church eventually stopped dealing with the Girl Scouts for several reasons one of which they didn't seem to like the fact that there was some God thrown in(the meetings were held in our church by our church members.) An alternate program was found. Interestingly enough we still have the Boy Scouts.
posted by konolia at 8:50 AM on July 26, 2006


I don't know what could have contributed to malor's views above, but from my experience, it could not be further from the truth. I have been a scout volunteer for a church sponsored troop for nearly 10 years about as deep in the Bible belt as you can be...I do not attend this specific church or any church for that matter and no one has ever asked me or any other adult volunteer about their religious views. I have had the opportunity to meet the leaders of dozens of other troops and just like in any large organization, the people come in all sorts of flavors. I have run into everything from fiery eyed bible thumpers to vegan hippies with backpacks and tevas...the two common themes I have found are an interest in introducing their sons and other boys to the cool parts of the outdoors and an attempt to expose them to the good judgement they will need to succeed in life...or at least enough judgement to avoid driving themselves and a carload of friends into a bridge abutment. Religion is one of the basic underpinnings of scouting...but the organization is way more non-denominational than it was when I was a scout. I am aware that the Mormon church is a strong supporter of scouting, but I have never heard anything that led me to believe the Mormons exerted any influence beyond their part of the whole. You can criticize scouting all you want for the shenanigans of some of its national leadership, but at its core, it is still a great organization for boys. I don't think you can possibly understand this until you have attended an eagle ceremony and listened to the accomplishments of a young man who has achieved that rank.
posted by cyclopz at 8:55 AM on July 26, 2006


If this bill is about treating all organizations fairly, then the Scouts should have no problem shutting the fuck up and paying normal rent like all the other organizations that don't want to adhere to the government's guidelines. They're bitching that they're being told they can't discriminate at a discount. Fuck them.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:09 AM on July 26, 2006


You have to admit, a gay troop leader is sort of creepy.

I personally wouldn't want to have a gay troop leader flaming around while the troop pisses out the camp fire.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 9:11 AM on July 26, 2006


I'm with XQ. Plus I love the tough guy schtick. Arnold wasn't a boy scout. Neither was Chuck Norris. #$%@ them.
posted by ewkpates at 9:13 AM on July 26, 2006


Well...

On the one hand, I think the principle of the second half of this bill is sound, in that government-owned forums should be open to any group who wishes to use the forum.

On the other hand, is it discrimination if the government makes a rule and seeks to apply that rule equally to all groups wishing to use a space?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:15 AM on July 26, 2006


You have to admit, a gay troop leader is sort of creepy.

No, a troop leader who molests children is creepy. Just like the clergy, the two issues are not one and the same. For one thing, the former is an actual action while the latter is a situation that tends to have little to do with being a Scout in the first place. What the hell does sexual orientation have to do with 99% of the stuff Scoutmasters teach their kids?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:18 AM on July 26, 2006


My Scoutmaster was Lance Bass. Weblows was interesting.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:25 AM on July 26, 2006


Jesse Helms, your asshole is showing.

Or, what XQETC. said.
posted by papercake at 9:27 AM on July 26, 2006


Meanwhile,whether their fears were accurate or not ,a lot of parents would not want a gay scoutmaster working with their boys.

I'm sure there are some parents who wouldn't want a black scoutmaster working with thier kids too. Don't mean the BSA has the right to deny black men the opportunity to become scoutmasters.
posted by eustacescrubb at 9:34 AM on July 26, 2006 [1 favorite]


Amen, brotha Cow. Kinda.

Back in the day, the goal of the Scouts was to direct boys toward becoming (lemme see if I remember this still...) trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent young men. And, it seems, that is still what their goal. Which is why there's all the pissin' and moanin' going on.

See, in the day, a good citizen displayed those traits proudly. Since "the day", though, society has lowered the bar... a whole lot. So much that if a young man possesses any of those traits, and knows what's good for him, he'll hide them from everyone. Nowadays, folks like that are buzzkills and wusses.

Props to the BSA for refusing to stoop and follow our society into the gutter! But, at the same time, parting from our society's path means parting with our society's support. The BSA should absolutely be free to bar those they feel are improper role models... but should also recognize that they'll be punished for standing up for what's right and secure private funding.

If the coming couple decades continue as have the last couple, with regard to the whole "celebrate diversity" crock o' crap, we can probably expect this same situation to come up again with Little League Baseball and other youth sports groups. Soon (again, assuming we lemmings continue on our present course) members of "reform" groups such as NAMBLA and NORML will be considered just as socially acceptable as gays and will likewise begin bitching and whining that Little League is illegally discriminating against them by not allowing them to coach your kids. And, as is happening with the BSA, they'll be forced to choose between what every honest and mentally healthy person knows is right, and society's spiraling standards.
posted by CodeBaloo at 9:36 AM on July 26, 2006


You have to admit, a gay troop leader is sort of creepy.
then
No, a troop leader who molests children is creepy.

No, both are equally creepy. Well... okay... the child molester's more creepy, but the point remains: they're both creepy.
posted by CodeBaloo at 9:41 AM on July 26, 2006


No Federal law (including any rule, regulation, directive, instruction, or order) shall be construed to limit any Federal agency from providing any form of support for a youth organization ...

It is clear that this legislation is in reaction to local anti-discrimination actions as described in the first link. Frist can't do anything about state or local funds, but he can with federal funds.

If dios denies the plain language and intent of this legislation it is just one more example of his complete dishonesty in discussing just about any topic.

"Equal access bill!" You can't get more dishonest than that.
posted by JackFlash at 9:41 AM on July 26, 2006


Trolls are creepy, too.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:43 AM on July 26, 2006


You have to admit, a gay troop leader is sort of creepy.

Not to pile on, but child molesters are disproportionately ostensibly straight men. The odds are strongly against being molested by a "gay man".
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:44 AM on July 26, 2006


I find Republicans creepy.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 9:48 AM on July 26, 2006


Code Baloo's a troll, folks. Move on.
posted by the_savage_mind at 9:49 AM on July 26, 2006


I'd echo what ColdChef said. I really wanted to do all the Boy Scout-y things when I was a kid, but what kept me out was my pre-pubescent gaydar telling me something was really, really wrong with those uniforms.

That said, I'm also in agreement with XQ about discount discrimination. Fuck those losers. If I had a son, I'd think one of the best ways to make sure he didn't turn into a homophobic bigot would be to show him at an early age that there are adult gays who actually care about him and aren't out to bugger him.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:50 AM on July 26, 2006


Trolls are creepy, too.

Yeah. Let us know if you spot one, 'kay?

I am fully aware that what I posted will be seen as troll-ish. So be it. But it's how I feel. In time you'll notice, as others have before, that I am willing and able to both engage in reasonable dialogue and refrain from engaging in unreasonable dialogue.

BTW, most trolls, I'd imagine, don't pay for the right to troll when there are plenty of free places to ply their trade.
posted by CodeBaloo at 9:50 AM on July 26, 2006


In time you'll notice, as others have before, that I am willing and able to both engage in reasonable dialogue and refrain from engaging in unreasonable dialogue.

Okay, so let's see you try it. Explain, using your abilities of reason, what is so creepy about a gay scout master.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 9:55 AM on July 26, 2006


members of "reform" groups such as NAMBLA and NORML will be considered just as socially acceptable as gays and will likewise begin bitching and whining that Little League is illegally discriminating against them by not allowing them to coach your kids. And, as is happening with the BSA, they'll be forced to choose between what every honest and mentally healthy person knows is right, and society's spiraling standards.

Smoking weed is morally equivalent to child molestation?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:55 AM on July 26, 2006


CodeBaloo writes "BTW, most trolls, I'd imagine, don't pay for the right to troll when there are plenty of free places to ply their trade."

You'd think so, but then you'd be thinking wrong.
posted by Fezboy! at 9:56 AM on July 26, 2006


"Fuck those losers. If I had a son, I'd think one of the best ways to make sure he didn't turn into a homophobic bigot would be to show him at an early age that there are adult gays who actually care about him and aren't out to bugger him."

WTF?

"Timmy, we just want you to know your Scoutmaster is gay, but he's really a nice guy and only buggers adults outside the troop."

Oh, yeah. That'll help him avoid the bigotry no end...

Maybe the best way to avoid him being a homophobic bigot is to kind of not make sexual orientation a big flamin' deal, and de-emphasize the differences in a quiet manner. Realistically, pre-puberty it's not going to matter, and post-puberty they're going to be busy trying to figure out which direction their own plumbing points.

I think our society bombards kids with too much sex as is. (Wait until you're a parent - the little guy's 8 and so far a lot of stuff is sailing over his head. Pretty soon, it won't.) How about having some safe areas where it isn't an issue?
posted by JB71 at 10:07 AM on July 26, 2006


Diversity! *shudder* It's a slippery slope. A slippery, slippery, wet-hot slippery slope straight down into the steaming pit of Satan's Anus. Luckily, I got my Merit Badge in denial.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:07 AM on July 26, 2006 [1 favorite]


Perhaps the solution is to get over your cheap self and deal with your own discomfort?

One of the big problems is that a lot of scouting adult leadership is recruited from within the ranks. So there are a fair number of us out there who reached adulthood only to find that our sexuality and religious opinions suddenly meant that the leadership skills learned in getting that cherished Eagle badge meant nothing within the organization.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:07 AM on July 26, 2006


Explain, using your abilities of reason, what is so creepy about a gay scout master.

I can't. A "creepy" feeling is subjective, and isn't something that can reasonably be explained. Similarly, I can't reasonably defend why I'd feel creepy about a child molester Scoutmaster. But that wouldn't make me feel any less creeped out by it.

The closest I can come would be this: I'd associate the (assumed "openly") gay Scoutmaster's attraction to men with a woman's attraction to men. And it would be just as creepy to have a gay Scoutmaster as it would, for example, if I was near-naked and crammed shoulder to shoulder in a Native American sweat lodge with a woman Scoutmaster. Or coming out of the tent in my underwear to visit the latrine with a woman Scoutmaster in camp. Or, as another poster commented, being in a ring of boys pissing out the campfire... with a woman Scoutmaster a few feet away.

Sorry, but for "creepy" that's the best I could do.
posted by CodeBaloo at 10:11 AM on July 26, 2006


What we all need is more laws...
posted by oncogenesis at 10:15 AM on July 26, 2006



You have to admit, a gay troop leader is sort of creepy.
then
No, a troop leader who molests children is creepy.

No, both are equally creepy. Well... okay... the child molester's more creepy, but the point remains: they're both creepy.


WTF ... XQ pointed it out the difference to you, but you still insist on judging a perfectly benign action by irrelevant sexual preference.

Would you like to list other things that straight people can do without anyone raising an eye, but become creepy when a gay man does it?

'cause when you say that "leading a group of children" is one of those creepy things for a gay man, you're implying that he has a sexual interest in those children. Not cool.
posted by adzuki at 10:15 AM on July 26, 2006


Realistically, pre-puberty it's not going to matter, and post-puberty they're going to be busy trying to figure out which direction their own plumbing points.

I think our society bombards kids with too much sex as is. (Wait until you're a parent - the little guy's 8 and so far a lot of stuff is sailing over his head. Pretty soon, it won't.) How about having some safe areas where it isn't an issue?


From "A Brief History of the Boy Scouts of America":

Age Range. The upper age limit for Boy Scout troops has always been 18. For almost 40 years, the entry age was 12. The BSA lowered the entry age to 11 in 1949. In 1972, the entry age was slightly lowered again, to 10-1/2 if a boy had finished Fifth Grade. In 1988, the age limit was further adjusted to allow a boy to join either at age 11, or upon completion of Fifth Grade regardless of age, or upon earning the Webelos Arrow of Light award; in 2004, this requirement was clarified to set the minimum age at 10.

Ten to eighteen sounds like puberty to post-puberty, no? It's probably not pre-puberty in the way you're referring, and, in any case, I do remember getting some school-led sex education in fifth grade.

Not meaning to split hairs, but society hasn't made fifth grade onwards a "safe area" for sexuality for some time, with or without the consent of the Boy Scouts of America.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:16 AM on July 26, 2006


The Jesse Helms writes "You have to admit, a gay troop leader is sort of creepy."

I don't admit that at all. It seems to me that the creep scale and the sexual orientation scale are orthogonal to each other.
posted by Mitheral at 10:16 AM on July 26, 2006


A lot of you are missing the point. There are plenty of rational troops out there who will accept atheism and homosexuality as normal behavior. The problem is that the national and Council levels of the BSA are controlled by nutcases who back up any troop who does that crazy discrimination shit, and sends letters down to the reasonable troops when they find out about a homo or atheist or pagan and demand they be given the boot.
posted by Megafly at 10:20 AM on July 26, 2006


BTW, most trolls, I'd imagine, don't pay for the right to troll when there are plenty of free places to ply their trade.

Honey, welcome to MetaFilter. It's your second day here. You'll soon learn that we have our fair share of 'trolls' here who've poneyed up $5 to post and stir up some shit.
posted by ericb at 10:21 AM on July 26, 2006


I can't reasonably defend why I'd feel creepy about a child molester Scoutmaster.

Uh, sure you can: child molesters molest children and they shouldn't have have unrestricted contact with them.

You're not a troll, you're just stupid. Welcome to MetaFilter.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:22 AM on July 26, 2006 [2 favorites]


CodeBaloo said: Soon (again, assuming we lemmings continue on our present course) members of "reform" groups such as NAMBLA and NORML will be considered just as socially acceptable as gays and will likewise begin bitching and whining that Little League is illegally discriminating against them by not allowing them to coach your kids. And, as is happening with the BSA, they'll be forced to choose between what every honest and mentally healthy person knows is right, and society's spiraling standards.

Wow...so many cliches, so little time...and from someone who's user name could certainly be construed as a pink hanky in the back pocket...you big Bear, you.

Let's see: "lemmings" meme...check, "scare quotes"...check, equating NAMBLA with TeH Gay...check, equating stoners with pedophiles...that's a new one, good on you. "Won't someone please think of the children?"...check. Homosexuals are causing the downfall of society as we know it...check.

Ok darlin, I think you managed to hit all your talking points in one paragraph. Good work, take the rest of the day off.
posted by dejah420 at 10:27 AM on July 26, 2006


KirkJobSluder - I readily accept my discomfort, so I have nothing to get over.

I appreciate the bind you illustrate regarding recruiting leaders from within the ranks. It sucks. But unless the BSA changes it's ideals, you'd have to be teaching the kids to be morally straight. Coming from a gay man, when the BSA and, for the moment, society's idea of morally straight exclude homosexuality, you'd be teaching "do as I say, not as I do."

On the flip side of the same coin, as a fat guy, if the BSA applied its standards uniformly, I shouldn't be allowed to lead because I'd have the same problem in teaching the kids to be physically fit.
posted by CodeBaloo at 10:27 AM on July 26, 2006


CodeBaloo: "And it would be just as creepy to have a gay Scoutmaster as it would, for example, if I was near-naked and crammed shoulder to shoulder in a Native American sweat lodge with a woman Scoutmaster. Or coming out of the tent in my underwear to visit the latrine with a woman Scoutmaster in camp. Or, as another poster commented, being in a ring of boys pissing out the campfire... with a woman Scoutmaster a few feet away."

So... near-naked and crammed shoulder to shoulder with a woman would be creepy to you, but with a bunch of young men... That would be almost as much fun as a ring of boys around the campfire with their willies in their hands? Sounds like a column of steaming piss to me.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:27 AM on July 26, 2006


I am willing and able to both engage in reasonable dialogue and refrain from engaging in unreasonable dialogue.

You aren't engaging in reasonable dialogue when you are suggesting that accepting gays will lead to accepting child molesters. That is completely unreasonable, because gay people are not the equivalent of child molesters.
posted by MegoSteve at 10:27 AM on July 26, 2006


CodeBaloo: Similarly, I can't reasonably defend why I'd feel creepy about a child molester Scoutmaster.

I can. I think it is reasonable to suppose that child molesters are quite likely to commit a the crime of molestation.

The closest I can come would be this: I'd associate the (assumed "openly") gay Scoutmaster's attraction to men with a woman's attraction to men. And it would be just as creepy to have a gay Scoutmaster as it would, for example, if I was near-naked and crammed shoulder to shoulder in a Native American sweat lodge with a woman Scoutmaster. Or coming out of the tent in my underwear to visit the latrine with a woman Scoutmaster in camp. Or, as another poster commented, being in a ring of boys pissing out the campfire... with a woman Scoutmaster a few feet away.

You do know that women Assistant Scoutmasters are acceptable (or were when I left the organization)?

I think the myth here is that gay and bisexual men treat other men the way that straight men treat women. In other words, we can't help but step into a gym shower and get so sexually aroused by the sight of other men that we must jump your bones for an anonymous quicky.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:28 AM on July 26, 2006


BTW --

"...[T]he ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1."

[National Center for Biotechnology Information | U.S. National Library of Medicine].
posted by ericb at 10:28 AM on July 26, 2006 [1 favorite]


And, as is happening with the BSA, they'll be forced to choose between what every honest and mentally healthy person knows is right
[...]
they're both creepy.


You're fucking creepy.

In time you'll notice, as others have before, that I am willing and able to both engage in reasonable dialogue and refrain from engaging in unreasonable dialogue.

Suggesting that anyone who would support gays in scouting is either not honest or not mentally healthy or both is not reasonable dialogue.
posted by solid-one-love at 10:28 AM on July 26, 2006


KirkJobSluder writes :
On the other hand, is it discrimination if the government makes a rule and seeks to apply that rule equally to all groups wishing to use a space?

I am reminded of a quote by Anatole France:
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

Poll taxes. A ban on headwear in schools. Prohibition on marrying someone of a different race.

Applying a law equally does not make it fair. (Applying a law unequally however probably does make it unfair) A prohibition on de-funding groups certainly favors the groups that already have funding over those that don't.
posted by adzuki at 10:30 AM on July 26, 2006


In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion, including the personal attack of calling others trolls.

My comment is not designed to inflame, or to relegate anyone back to the safety of bipolar talking points like crabs backed into a corner.

"Republicans are creepy"

Yes, I have no doubt that Ralph Reed is a complete shitbag, as are most conservative religious types, who must continually announce their morality as they are the least moral of all.

"No, a troop leader who molests children is creepy."

That's pretty creepy. But consider a 9 year old boy in a packed gay bar. What is molestation then? Is it only rape behind the campsite, or is it possible that it is also inappropriate circumstances of proximity and sexual orientation?

I believe my stance is correct, that grown men interested in penis should not be in the midst of young boys (for example, changing underwear after swimming in a river,) despite a troop leader's most sincere intentions.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:31 AM on July 26, 2006


cyclopz, you may just not have much contact with National. Many local chapters are pretty independent, but the organization as a whole has changed into A) primarily an arm of the Mormon church, and B) primarily a fundraising operation.

I'm speaking largely from my experience (and my family's) in California, but it corresponds strongly with most folks' I've spoken with that have dealt much with National. The paid professionals in Scouting are dominated by Mormons. It may be less true in deeply religious areas like the South, since they wouldn't have as strong an influence (or as many to pick from) there, but in areas like California, their control is essentially absolute.

And in Northern California, at least, the drive toward fundraising became so incredibly prevalent that it became noxious... the kids were expected to spend as much time raising money as, you know, camping. The circle of Scouters around our family, by and large, felt the program had been severely impaired.

And, of course, the exec in charge, who was considered a great guy by National because he was able to raise so much money, was promoted into a Utah council. It was considered a big deal, a steppingstone to a very senior position in Scouts. (I can't remember his name now, it's been a long time.) He left behind, in my opinion, a smoking ruin of a kids' program.
posted by Malor at 10:32 AM on July 26, 2006


I believe my stance is correct, that grown men interested in penis should not be in the midst of young boys (for example, changing underwear after swimming in a river,) despite a troop leader's most sincere intentions.

What about grown women that are interested in penis?
posted by MegoSteve at 10:33 AM on July 26, 2006


grown men interested in penis should not be in the midst of young boys

As a gay man, I can tell you I have no interest or attraction to boys, or to straight men. BTW -- don't flatter yourself thinking that any gay man would find you attractive.
posted by ericb at 10:33 AM on July 26, 2006


I believe my stance is correct, that grown men interested in penis should not be in the midst of young boys (for example, changing underwear after swimming in a river,) despite a troop leader's most sincere intentions.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:31 AM PST on July 26


I guess that means I will never have to put up with diaper duty if I ever have a daughter; thanks, TJH.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:34 AM on July 26, 2006


In related news -- Prosecutors fight 'gay panic' defenses.
posted by ericb at 10:35 AM on July 26, 2006


I believe my stance is correct, that grown men interested in penis should not be in the midst of young boys (for example, changing underwear after swimming in a river,) despite a troop leader's most sincere intentions.

So do you think gay men should be teaching in classrooms in "the midst of young boys"? What about other positions of responsibility involving children of either gender? Does my being "interested in penis" disqualify me from being near or in the vicinity of children, period? My two 7- and 5-year-old nephews would be quite unhappy to hear that.

And what about non-grown men "interested in penis"? Or do men only become "interested in penis" once they're all done and growed up?
posted by blucevalo at 10:38 AM on July 26, 2006


I guess that means I will never have to put up with diaper duty if I ever have a daughter; thanks, TJH.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:34 AM PST on July 26



Boy scouts aren't infants. Would you take a shower with your 13 year old daughter?
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:39 AM on July 26, 2006


So do you think gay men should be teaching in classrooms in "the midst of young boys"?

Math class isn't exactly flashlights and dicks.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:42 AM on July 26, 2006


A prohibition on de-funding groups certainly favors the groups that already have funding over those that don't.

This is certainly an interesting and discriminatory aspect of the law, as proposed, but not one discussed by its proponents, for obvious reasons.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:42 AM on July 26, 2006


The Jesse Helms: "Math class isn't exactly flashlights and dicks."

Neither is Boy Scouts. And I really can't remember taking showers with any Scoutmasters of any persuasion. You must have had a really gay troup.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:45 AM on July 26, 2006 [1 favorite]


I don't think Boy Scouts should be Federally funded though, I do agree that the Boy Scouts are discriminatory.

Just like churches shouldn't get one fucking dime of my tax dollar - yet they are awash in cash from Bush's Money for Votes Faith Based Initiative.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:47 AM on July 26, 2006


CodeBaloo: I readily accept my discomfort, so I have nothing to get over.

Your irrational discomfort is not a strong enough justification to justify discrimination.

But unless the BSA changes it's ideals, you'd have to be teaching the kids to be morally straight. Coming from a gay man, when the BSA and, for the moment, society's idea of morally straight exclude homosexuality, you'd be teaching "do as I say, not as I do."

Well how is "morally straight" defined:
To be a person of strong character, your relationships with others should be honest and open. You should respect and defend the rights of all people. Be clean in your speech and actions, and remain faithful in your religious beliefs. The values you practice as a Scout will help you shape a life of virtue and self-reliance.
My beliefs, and the belief systems in which I was raised, hold that prejudice, bigotry and discrimination are bad things to practice. The whole Scout Oath does not say that one must be faithful to a specific morality, but the morality of their religious community. (Which is another problem with the BSA's policy is that it has started to refuse to recognize denominations tolerant of homosexuality.)

I don't see how gay and bisexual men are excluded from conducting their lives in a "morally straight" manner, at least according to the definition as such presented by the BSA.

The Jessie Helms: That's pretty creepy. But consider a 9 year old boy in a packed gay bar. What is molestation then? Is it only rape behind the campsite, or is it possible that it is also inappropriate circumstances of proximity and sexual orientation?

I don't think 9 year old boys should be taken to singles bars either. And yet, we don't have an objection to Cub Scout mothers. Proximity is a silly standard, because it means that gay and bisexual men shouldn't be out in public in any capacity.

I believe my stance is correct, that grown men interested in penis should not be in the midst of young boys (for example, changing underwear after swimming in a river,) despite a troop leader's most sincere intentions.

ZOMG! Nudity!
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:47 AM on July 26, 2006


You must have had a really gay troup.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:45 AM PST on July 26


One of the former youth leaders is still in prison. I'll let you guess why.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:48 AM on July 26, 2006


Boy scouts aren't infants. Would you take a shower with your 13 year old daughter?

That depends. Is she hot?
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 10:53 AM on July 26, 2006



I should also snicker and point out that a prohibition on de-funding groups also strongly favors those groups who not only have funding, but are in some political danger of losing it.

That gets it down to a pretty specific group.
posted by adzuki at 10:55 AM on July 26, 2006


The Jesse Helms: "One of the former youth leaders is still in prison. I'll let you guess why."

Flashlight envy?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:59 AM on July 26, 2006


The Jesse Helms: One of the former youth leaders is still in prison. I'll let you guess why.

If I was a bookmaker, I'd place strong odds that person never openly identified as gay or bisexual (and still does not.)

Which is why the whole thing about excluding openly gay and bisexual scoutmasters in order to prevent molestation is a big pile of bullshit. If you are really concerned about that, you have other rules in place. Two adults with kids at all times. Adults don't share tents or showers with kids.

Most gay and bisexual men have grown up around other men in various stages of undress. Just proximity and nakedness doesn't turn the crank of most. (Proximity, nakedness, and a "come here" look might.)
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:00 AM on July 26, 2006


Boy scouts aren't infants. Would you take a shower with your 13 year old daughter?
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:39 AM PST on July 26


I wasn't aware that BSA was all about showering.

Fuck it, we should just segregate all adults from all children.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:07 AM on July 26, 2006


Honey, welcome to MetaFilter. It's your second day here. You'll soon learn that we have our fair share of 'trolls' here who've poneyed up $5 to post and stir up some shit.

Yeah, thanks... I think I've learned that already. And based upon the quick and venomous reactions I've seen thus far, I'd imagine those that do fork over the $5 feel it's worth every cent and then some. This place seems it'd be troll Heaven... a goldmine of hair-triggers.

Sadly, it seems that here, as is more and more often the case in general, one is welcome to have one's own opinion, but only welcome to express it if it's been drawn from the official list of approved thoughts.

Oh well, chalk this one up to experience, I guess. Perhaps one day I'll learn. It'll be a challenge, but I'm sure I can learn to limit my MetaFilter comments to "yeah, I feel that way, too" and save the honest, discussion-prompting opinions for cooler heads.
posted by CodeBaloo at 11:08 AM on July 26, 2006


the honest, discussion-prompting opinions for cooler heads

Could it be that many (most?) people find your opinion(s) abhorrent and are expressing an opposing point?
posted by ericb at 11:11 AM on July 26, 2006


honest, discussion-prompting opinions

Lumping homosexuals, child molesters, and potheads all together is neither honest nor discussion prompting, unless you want the discussion to be about how dumb you are.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:11 AM on July 26, 2006


Metafilter isn't exactly flashlights and dicks.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:11 AM on July 26, 2006


KirkJobSluder - Your irrational discomfort is not a strong enough justification to justify discrimination.

...in your opinion. And in mine, it is enough. When all else is stripped away, that seems to be the essential debate.
posted by CodeBaloo at 11:13 AM on July 26, 2006


I had a gay scoutmaster. I didn't find out till he decided to out himself after nearly two decades of service.
Apparently he kept his sexuality and scouting pretty well separate, as people who had known him for 10+ years didn't know. Or maybe they did know, but they chose not to judge him based on sexuality, and more on his outstanding civic record with one of the largest troops in the US.

To assume that just because a man is gay means he's gonna be pokin the little ones, is not only disrespectful to someone who gave themselves wholeheartedly to an organization that thought he was morally less than them, but is pretty ignorant.
posted by fnord at 11:14 AM on July 26, 2006 [1 favorite]


Wow. Wouldn't think a machapologist would be such a crybaby when challenged.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:14 AM on July 26, 2006


And in mine, it is enough.

Too bad no one elected you king, huh?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:15 AM on July 26, 2006


Meanwhile, there is another problem that needs to be considered. I would say that the percentage of LGBT friends who have seriously contemplated or attempted suicide due to anti-gay bigotry is close to 50%. This isn't just some one-off attitude, this is something that is killing kids in the hundreds.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:16 AM on July 26, 2006


CodeBaloo -- Props to the BSA for refusing to stoop and follow our society into the gutter! ...The BSA should absolutely be free to bar those they feel are improper role models...And, as is happening with the BSA, they'll be forced to choose between what every honest and mentally healthy person knows is right, and society's spiraling standards.

Unbelievable! So, "the gay" is driving society into the gutter? Are gays not "mentally healthy?"
posted by ericb at 11:16 AM on July 26, 2006


Ericb - That could certainly be the case, and obviously is. Problem is most are not expressing an opposing point, rather coming after those who expressed the opinion. For example, see the post after the one I'm responding to. 'Nuff said?
posted by CodeBaloo at 11:16 AM on July 26, 2006


Math class isn't exactly flashlights and dicks.

A good point, and the point is taken. But my idea was more to say that there are many people who make exactly that equivalency, i.e., that teh gayz shouldn't be around kids period.

Thus, we can expect the next round of agitation from the same folks who brought us same-sex marriage bans to center around gay-foster-parent and gay-adoption bans.
posted by blucevalo at 11:17 AM on July 26, 2006


BTW, ericb, the timing of our mutual posts made it look awkward. I was referring to your earlier comment "Could it be that many (most?) people find your opinion(s) abhorrent and are expressing an opposing point?"
posted by CodeBaloo at 11:20 AM on July 26, 2006


The term for a person who can't justify a dislike for a class of people beyond an admission of irrational personal prejudice is bigot.

If the shoe fits, eat it.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:21 AM on July 26, 2006


This place seems it'd be troll Heaven... a goldmine of hair-triggers.

If you post what you've posted, equating homosexuality with mental illness and worse, and saying "my way or the highway," I'd say either that you'd probably better be prepared for more than a few venomous comments to come your way, or that you're confusing MetaFilter with Free Republic.
posted by blucevalo at 11:23 AM on July 26, 2006


KirkJobSluder - And what would that percentage would be if an assertive minority had not dragged homosexuality into the mainstream? Somebody mentioned unintended consequences earlier, remember? Let's put the blame for that sad figure where it rightly belongs.
posted by CodeBaloo at 11:24 AM on July 26, 2006


Oh well, chalk this one up to experience, I guess. Perhaps one day I'll learn. BLAH BLAH BLAH...

Get off your cross, smart guy. You equated homosexuals with child molesters and now have the audacity to whine about being persecuted when some folks pointed out that, well, it's a shitty equivocation? You'll do just fine here.

Metafilter: flashlights fleshlights and dicks.
posted by joe lisboa at 11:25 AM on July 26, 2006


I don't know why we're even bothing to argue with an unethical internet marketer like CodeBaloo here.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:25 AM on July 26, 2006


Optimus Chyme -- good point. I've added CodeBaloo to my ignore list (right up there with some other known trolls).
posted by ericb at 11:26 AM on July 26, 2006


I'm just marking time until lunch.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:27 AM on July 26, 2006


At which time I will be eating the souls of Christian babies.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:27 AM on July 26, 2006


Just don't go eating those souls in a gay way or anything.
posted by joe lisboa at 11:28 AM on July 26, 2006


Heaven forbid.
posted by blucevalo at 11:29 AM on July 26, 2006


And I really can't remember taking showers with any Scoutmasters of any persuasion.

That's because it's against BSA Policy.

Respect of privacy
Adult leaders must respect the privacy of youth members in situations such as changing clothes and taking showers at camp, and intrude only to the extent that health and safety require. Adults must protect their own privacy in similar situations.


I'm done with Scouts, as well. Even after getting Eagle and the Vigil Honor, I can't support the organization any more. Reverence is supposed to be tolerance and respect, not discrimination.
posted by shawnj at 11:30 AM on July 26, 2006 [1 favorite]


Blucevalo - kinda making my point. I never equated homosexuality with mental illness. I never said "my way or the highway". Yet, those are what my comments have been twisted into and responded to. Go back and follow the transformations... a slight change in wording here, some ellipses there so that two separate quotes are in visual proximity, and Voila!, you have something completely new and much more imflammatory to respond to.
posted by CodeBaloo at 11:30 AM on July 26, 2006


Hey -- this thread and the Lance Bass is Gay thread are neck-and-neck -- each with 107 comments.
posted by ericb at 11:31 AM on July 26, 2006


I never equated homosexuality with mental illness.

Another lie.

And, as is happening with the BSA, they'll be forced to choose between what every honest and mentally healthy person knows is right, and society's spiraling standards.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:33 AM on July 26, 2006


"Canada's Boy Scouts permit gay troops" [Toronto Globe and Mail | June 19, 2000] - damn hippies!
posted by ericb at 11:35 AM on July 26, 2006


Joe Lisboa - You equated homosexuals with child molesters...

Before you slam, perhaps you could please quote my comment that said this. It seems to have taken root. The only comment I made that had to do with child molesters was regarding society's slide into accepting more and more things as "normal" that aren't. Please show the leap from that to what you claim I said.
posted by CodeBaloo at 11:36 AM on July 26, 2006


Okay optimus, I'll finally take your bait...

And you think that is specifically calling someone, much less an entire group of someones, mentally ill?
posted by CodeBaloo at 11:39 AM on July 26, 2006


54 United Ways have withdrawn their support/funding for/of the Boy Scouts of America.

Just a sampling of other reactions to the BSA's discriminatory practices:
"The Los Angeles City Council voted 11 to 0 to cut the city's ties with the Boy Scouts of America.

Most California public high schools have withdrawn sponsorship of local scout troops.

Chicago, San Francisco and San Jose, Calif., have told local Scout troops that they can no longer use parks, schools and other municipal sites.

San Francisco's judges cut all ties with the Boy Scouts

The Minneapolis school board voted unanimously to end its sponsorship of Boy Scout troops and to prohibit the Scouts from recruiting new members in the public schools.

Steven Spielberg stepped down...from an advisory board of the Boy Scouts of America, saying that he could no longer associate with a group that engages in 'discrimination.'

Chase Manhattan Bank, Levi-Strauss & Co. and Textron Inc. Wells Fargo severed ties in the early 1990s and recently asked the United Way to steer its $400,000 donation away from the Boy Scouts.

Novell Inc. will no longer match employee contributions to the Boy Scouts of America.

CVS Pharmacy chain stopped funding the Boy Scouts in September, 2001.

Carrier Corporation has stopped funding the Boy Scouts.

HSBC bank stops supporting Boy Scouts.

Scripps Networks has asked the United Way to exclude the Boy Scouts of America from their corporate gift.

Reform Jewish leaders are recommending that parents withdraw their children from membership in the Boy Scouts of America and that synagogues end their sponsorship of Scout troops."

[source]

posted by ericb at 11:42 AM on July 26, 2006


CodeBaloo: And what would that percentage would be if an assertive minority had not dragged homosexuality into the mainstream? Somebody mentioned unintended consequences earlier, remember? Let's put the blame for that sad figure where it rightly belongs.

Probably quite a bit higher. These were people who discovered their sexuality without the benefit of supportive communities, believed they were freaks, and thought they were the only ones who felt that way. So yes, lets put the blame squarely where it belongs: on anti-gay bigotry.

Your attitude is killing people, if this uncomfortable truth bothers you, perhaps you should rethink your position.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:45 AM on July 26, 2006


The only comment I made that had to do with child molesters was regarding society's slide into accepting more and more things as "normal" that aren't. Please show the leap from that to what you claim I said.

...

If the coming couple decades continue as have the last couple, with regard to the whole "celebrate diversity" crock o' crap, we can probably expect this same situation to come up again with Little League Baseball and other youth sports groups. Soon (again, assuming we lemmings continue on our present course) members of "reform" groups such as NAMBLA and NORML will be considered just as socially acceptable as gays and will likewise begin bitching and whining that Little League is illegally discriminating against them by not allowing them to coach your kids. And, as is happening with the BSA, they'll be forced to choose between what every honest and mentally healthy person knows is right, and society's spiraling standards.

You have thirteen comments in this thread, all but one from your entire posting history. You specifically compose nearly 10% of this entire thread, even more if you aggregate the responses to your ridiculous bullshit. Shut. The. Fuck. Up. And. Leave.
posted by prostyle at 11:45 AM on July 26, 2006


Before you slam, perhaps you could please quote my comment that said this.

Dude, you invoked the spectre of NAMBLA-member Little League coaching as a parallel to gay scoutmasters. If you were any more transparent, I could actually see Pat Robertson's hand up your ass making your lips move.

No wonder you're a tad touchy about the gay menace.
posted by joe lisboa at 11:47 AM on July 26, 2006 [1 favorite]


And you think that is specifically calling someone, much less an entire group of someones, mentally ill?
posted by CodeBaloo at 11:39 AM PST on July 26


Uh, yeah, pretty much. If "all honest and mentally healthy person know [prohibiting homosexuals from Scouting] is right," then the rest of us must be either dishonest or mentally ill.

Note that this discussion isn't even a referendum on BSA's ethics, but rather their right to discriminate and get government discounts while doing so. You're the one who flipped out and started posting weird stuff.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:51 AM on July 26, 2006


Some posts are born eponysterical; others have eponystericality forced upon them.
posted by furiousthought at 11:55 AM on July 26, 2006


Go back and follow the transformations... a slight change in wording here, some ellipses there so that two separate quotes are in visual proximity, and Voila!, you have something completely new and much more imflammatory to respond to.

Voila indeed. Your disingenuousness apparently knows no bounds. You're clever, I'll give you that.
posted by blucevalo at 11:58 AM on July 26, 2006


I've added CodeBaloo to my ignore list

There's an IGNORE list?!!

Man, I could have been saving my blood-pressure all this time.
posted by the_savage_mind at 12:06 PM on July 26, 2006


prostyle - you have a point... it's generally accepted that "troll" is not the best first impression to make. It happened that I had a contrary opinion on this topic and made the mistake of not only expressing it, but not changing it to an approved one. Things quickly deteriorated from there. As I mentioned, lesson is being learned and I'll try to only express opinions if they will make everybody nod in agreement as they read. Then all will be well in the world.

And on that note, I'll take your advice -- well, two-thirds of it anyway -- and S.T.F.U.

To those who hung in and tried to enlighten me, thanks; some of the comments actually made me think about my position on this.
posted by CodeBaloo at 12:08 PM on July 26, 2006


My dad spent a lot of time as a kid outdoors, hiking around the woods, learning to tie knots and doing first-aid and fishing.

He called it poverty.

That said, I was only a Cub Scout. Never got around to eating a Brownie.
posted by bardic at 12:09 PM on July 26, 2006


CodeBaloo may be full of shit but he and his friends rather skillfully derailed this thread into an argument about how the majority of the american people are mentally ill, boy scouts are a naked pile of writhing flesh one boner away from an orgy, and not being fond of something makes you legally able to use federal money to discriminate against it.
posted by Megafly at 12:10 PM on July 26, 2006


Malor...I have had contact with members of the national organization. I have personally met Roy Williams and while he may be a bit of an overenthusiatic whack job, he doesn't strike me as a Mormon sympathizer...in fact, I would have thought the opposite. Fund raising is a big part of scouting, but in our council, 80% of the money we raise directly supports the troop. The balance goes to the local council. The only money we send to National is the annual registration and rechartering fee...we use some of our additional raised funds to provide "scholarships" to help families fund those fees, buy uniforms, supplies, and camping gear. Your experience may have been as you say, but it strikes me as overreaching to use that experience to condemn the whole organization. I have no personal experience and can't find any documentary evidence that the Mormons exert any more control over scouting's national organization than the Catholic church or any other religious organization...who, by the way, provide the vast majority of meeting locations and local support.
posted by cyclopz at 12:11 PM on July 26, 2006


okay, now someone explain to me how to get this ignore feature working.
posted by the_savage_mind at 12:15 PM on July 26, 2006


boy scouts are a naked pile of writhing flesh one boner away from an orgy

So is the Troy College football team ..


posted by ericb at 12:16 PM on July 26, 2006 [2 favorites]


It happened that I had a contrary opinion on this topic and made the mistake of not only expressing it, but not changing it to an approved one.

You're such a victim! You poor guy!

Seriously... you came in saying that gay people were like pedophiles and that only mentally ill or dishonest people support them, then complain that the tone of the thread isn't nice and no one is supporting you? Jeez Louise.
posted by MegoSteve at 12:17 PM on July 26, 2006


okay, now someone explain to me how to get this ignore feature working.

i think people are actually talking about Mondo Meta when they mention an ignore list.
posted by lord_wolf at 12:21 PM on July 26, 2006


Too bad this thread devolved into a conversation about gays. There is broader problem here that threatens the very foundations of our Democracy. Frist's bill is another insidious way for conservatives to lessen the gap between church and state. One of their basic missions is to brainwash kids so they become good little red soldiers to serve their twisted version of Christ and the Almighty Corporatocracy. Groups like the BSA are Trojan horses they pack with like-minded, fascist, fundamentalist conservatives and quietly insert into neighborhoods, yes, like the Nazi's did with their Hitler Youth programs.
posted by chance at 12:21 PM on July 26, 2006


and you guys need to go easy on CodeBaloo. he's just expressing his sincerely held personal opinion, and if we can't understand the rationale behind his equating gays with child molesters and the clinically insane, it's our fault, not his!

(okay, CodeBaloo. I got your back, now i expect you to back me up in the future when i equate jews with demons, blacks with dogs and dentists with elderberries, then disingenously insist that i did nothing of the sort. and i want violins -- lots of em -- playing for me when i start playing the "noble victim" role.)
posted by lord_wolf at 12:26 PM on July 26, 2006


Whilst I might disagree vociferously with CodeBaloo I think it's poor form that people are telling him to shut up and fuck off. Just because he believes something different to you doesn't make him worthless or an enemy.

CodeBaloo - I'd like to see a genuine reason, other than the "ick-factor" that's usually used in this instance as to why homosexuals should not be involved in responsible child-caring activities (teaching, scout masters etc.) Do you have a specific fear that can be addressed or is there some more nebulous reason for your concern?
posted by longbaugh at 12:32 PM on July 26, 2006


On preview - I fucking hate the Jew Cub Scout menace too lord_wolf, perhaps we can join the KKKKKKKKK (Ku Klux Klan Kamikaze Kidz Klub Killing Kikes Kollective)?
posted by longbaugh at 12:34 PM on July 26, 2006


He's just afraid of the inevitable Boyscout-on-dog sex.
posted by bardic at 12:36 PM on July 26, 2006


Ah, thanks lord-wolf. Great script.
posted by the_savage_mind at 12:45 PM on July 26, 2006


longbaugh, in answer to your question to CodeBaloo:

"To declare a condition a 'non-condition,' a group of practitioners had removed it from our list of serious psychosexual disorders. The action was all the more remarkable when one considers that it involved an out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but also a number of other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists, psychologists, and educators over the past seventy years ... For the next 18 years, the APA decision served as a Trojan horse, opening the gates to widespread psychological and social change in sexual customs and mores. The decision was to be used on numerous occasions for numerous purposes with the goal of normalizing homosexuality and elevating it to an esteemed status." [Charles Socarides, Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality (1992)]
posted by blucevalo at 12:46 PM on July 26, 2006


Ku Klux Klan Kamikaze Kidz Klub Killing Kikes Kollective

i'm down with that. i like the kamikaze part -- it gets the japanese in there. now if we can come up with a "k" word for dentists, aboriginals, stamp collectors, people who chew on ice cubes and rapists (all of the previously named groups are basically rapists anyway), we'd have the greatest. hate group. ever.
posted by lord_wolf at 12:48 PM on July 26, 2006 [1 favorite]


Hmmm... Kabuki Kamikaze Ku Klux Kinky Kid-Kuddling Kike Killing 0o Krunching Kolonised Kocksucker Kavity Kulling Kachet Kollecting Klan.

...and I claim my free hood.
posted by longbaugh at 1:07 PM on July 26, 2006


[bows to longbaugh, grand dragon of the kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk]

(note: we qualify for government funding!)
posted by lord_wolf at 1:38 PM on July 26, 2006


In Rehnquist's majority opinion in the Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, it was stated that the BSA is a private, not-for-profit organization.

Yet this same organization demanded the kind of access that public groups get to my school. In fact, the SCOTUS refused to hear a Michigan case from Brad Royal, saying that school scout partnerships do not promote religion.

They want it both ways.

And, speaking of creepy, let's talk about folks in that sky spirit cult where they hear voices in their head and are told that eating shrimp is bad. And let's handle those snakes. If that isn't creepy, I don't know what is. Watch some videos of evangelicals "exorcising" young people. I'd cheerfully hand over children to Akbar and Jeff before I'd let these wackos get near them.
posted by adipocere at 2:30 PM on July 26, 2006


Wow, Code Baloo, you seem awful homophobic.

As for having a gay scoutmaster, when I was a cubscout, my scoutmaster was a woman. Should she have been prohibited because she liked to have sex with men? Ergo, she might have molested little boys? That's ridiculous, as is the idea that ALL gay men want to molest little boys.

Most gay men I know are interested in other gay MEN, not children.
posted by MythMaker at 3:15 PM on July 26, 2006


"Whilst I might disagree vociferously with CodeBaloo I think it's poor form that people are telling him to shut up and fuck off."

I think a lot of people on the blue and in the real world have had it up to here with people who pronounce their personal ignorant bigotry as if it's truth as plain as water is wet, and then get confrontational when called out on it.

To give CodeBaloo some credit, at least he's honest that he really only has an unreasonable icky feeling about gay people, and he backed down after a while.

Meanwhile, the Feds are supporting an openly discriminatory organization, and attempting to override a city's attempt to enforce human rights. Lame, but no surprise.
posted by zoogleplex at 3:26 PM on July 26, 2006


Penn and Teller covered this like last season, old news.
Boy Scouts were completely taken over by the Mormon church in the late 70s or so.
The existing organization has basically nothing in common with the old one, except on the shallow surface.
posted by nightchrome at 5:58 PM on July 26, 2006


Penn and Teller covered this like last season, old news.

That's right. I did see that episode of 'Bullshit.'
posted by ericb at 6:07 PM on July 26, 2006


In reading this thread to this point, the thing that reflects badly on the established MetaFilter participants is that CodeBaloo has been fairly aggressively dismissed. There has been only minimal attempt to draw him out or show him the reasons why his prejudice is wrong. There are real reasons - some of which have been articulated (e.g., that gay adults are interested in other gay adults, just like heterosexual adults are likewise interested in other hetero adults; that gay != molester). There is an opportunity here to do some teaching maybe not that anyone owes it to anyone else, and that opportunity is lost becuase it is more fun to bash the basher. I totally understand the anger, and I totally disagree with CodeBaloo's points, but I remember being completely homophobic prior to my college years and frightened of gay people. It wasn't until I actually knew and was friendly with various gay people, and comfortable with my own sexuality that the threat ceased. I love the clever displays and liberal attitudes and all - that is why I come to MetaFilter and read it - it's the smartest discussion board out there, and the one that best fits who I am as a person - , but really - this sort of bashing the basher intolerance is itself counter-productive. We're not right in saying that CodeBaloo's position is wrong simply becuase we feel strongly about it. We have real reasons for believing this. There is data. We should communicate it rather than criticize. In summary, CodeBaloo, your position is wrong-headed and there are reasons why this is so. You're letting your emotional reaction to "gayness" overpower your capacity for rational thought and ignoring the data that shows that gayness is not a threat. Please reconsider.
posted by sirvesa at 6:26 PM on July 26, 2006


What I found fascinating about this thread (and Metafilter in general) is that as I learn more about the US from the discussions here, the more it does seem like some weird religious society with fucked up rules everywhere. As an Australian girl, I was in Scouts, which is mixed over here, with male and female leaders, and absolutely no religious aspect except for one of those vague prayers at the end of a big regional camp. And I can't imagine someone getting kicked out because they were gay, or not being able to be a leader. That would be totally creepy.
posted by jacalata at 7:11 PM on July 26, 2006


The US is a big place and you'll find outdoorsy children's groups that run the gamut from tyrannical religious despotisms to racist paramilitaries to nutty crunchy granola hippies to diversity-worshipping duck-squeezers to bored people looking for something outdoorsy to do to parents forcing their kids through any available program in an attempt to give them extracurricular activities in 4th grade.

It's also probably not an accident that Boy Scout/Cub Scout membership has dropped 24% since 1997.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:28 PM on July 26, 2006


Sirvesa - I certainly don’t mind discussion with people who think my position absolutely wrong. In fact, I enjoy it and have, on occasion altered my positions as a result. Unfortunately, as this thread demonstrates so clearly, civil discussion is beyond either most people’s interest or their capacity. So I appreciate the restraint shown by folks such as yourself, KirkJobSluder, blucevalo, ericb, and longbaugh.

First, to address the thread topic, the BSA, because it steadfastly holds to its discriminatory practices, does not deserve any public funding whatsoever. And, people should absolutely have the option to choose not only which nonprofits to support, but also which from whom to specifically withhold support.

As for the tangential thread…

Homophobia, MythMaker? A phobia is an irrational fear. I am not “afraid”, rationally or otherwise, of homosexuality. Incidentally, I have to give credit where due, it was a brilliant tactical move for the gay activist community to begin consistently, but incorrectly, attaching “-phobia/-phobe” to anyone opposing their agenda. Anything “-phobia” has an immediate negative connotation, implying that the person afflicted with such an irrational fear suffers from a mental disorder. Brilliant.

Homosexuality — or “homophilia”, to maintain semantic consistency with the “homophobia” label that gay community has chosen to associate with the issue — is becoming more “normal”, since the definition of normal fluctuates with the society’s whim. That society sees an issue as normal, though, does not require every member of that society to agree. And those who disagree are not necessarily afflicted with an irrational fear of the issue.

I don’t feel there is anything inherently wrong with a homosexual (or “homophile” – again, what’s good for the goose…) being in a position to care for children any more than anyone with any other sexual predilection. The problem is with the person who openly embraces, endorses, displays, advocates or otherwise models that sexual predilection being in a position to care for children.

I do not believe, and have not said, that homosexuals are pedophiles or that children are in any more danger of sexual abuse under the care of a homosexual. For those who still can’t see that, let me try to dumb it down a bit and paint what I said as an image. Imagine a very, very long playground slide. A kid on the slide represents society, and the kid’s position on the slide represents what is accepted by society as “normal”. At any point, the kid (society) has the option to get off the slide, or even begin crawling back up it. All along the slide are breakable barriers representing various ideas and practices. In big, capital letters floating in mid-air are “GOOD” near the top of the slide, and “BAD” near the bottom of the slide. For this example, let’s arbitrarily go with, from the top of the slide toward the bottom:
the traditional family,
the sexual revolution,
single parenting,
latchkey kids/both parents working,
the parent as primary teacher of moral values,
the homosexual revolution,
the relaxation of drug laws,
every sort of other evil thing you can imagine,
then at the very bottom, the NAMBLA freaks’ agenda.

Contrary to what some have tried to twist my position into, this is what I said: The kid has been in a downward slide for the past couple decades. The kid has shattered the traditional family, sexual revolution, single parent,and latchkey kids barriers. The the parent as primary moral teacher and homosexuality barriers are both nearly breached. If society continues its downward slide, over the coming couple decades it will eventually accept more and more things further down the slide as “normal” also, including the views of the NORML and, eventually, NAMBLA weirdoes. That is what I said. And somehow, amazingly, folks interpret that as “equating” homosexuals to NAMBLA or NORML members.

Is there a chance that I hold the wrong opinion? Sure. Is there a chance that the opposite view is wrong? Sure. Will you change my basic stance or I, yours? Possible, but not likely. That’s what makes hot-button issues so much fun to discuss.
posted by CodeBaloo at 5:36 AM on July 27, 2006


So basically it's not homosexuality (or homophilia if you will) that you disagree with, but the fact that the acceptance of it is an indica