So much for “Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner:”
The news that his boyfriend, Jason Johnson, was expelled from University of the Cumberlands was still sinking in when Zac Dreyer sat at a computer to spread the news.
“He is being asked to leave the university because he is gay,” Dreyer wrote Thursday on the Web site MySpace.com, the same site school officials used to confront Johnson. “Help get the story out there so that all the gays and lesbians at the university will no longer have to live in secrecy, in fear of having their dreams crushed in front of them.”
Within a few hours, friends and students at the small Baptist college in Williamsburg were commenting in blogs about Johnson’s expulsion. The buzz grew over the weekend, and by yesterday the issue drew reaction from legislators in Frankfort and on gay advocacy organizations’ Web sites nationwide.
Johnson, a sophomore majoring in theater arts, was expelled from the university Thursday because he declared online that he is gay. In a statement released last week, the university’s president, Jim Taylor said students are held to a “higher standard” and that “students know the rules before they come to this institution.”
Feh.
OCSteve
Don’t ask don’t tell for the baptists? heh.
btw – link at the top is broken.
Lee
They allow males in the theater arts department and are surprised when one is gay?
/rimshot
Ryan S
Geez, Don’t you know the rules before you read them. You’re so stupid.
The Other Steve
They are only looking out for the kid’s best interest.
Ancient Purple
I love the morality: better to lie about who you are than to tell the truth.
Jesus would be so proud!
gratefulcub
The school gets a million dollars a year from the state of kentucky.
Hopefully, that means this will not go away. Even in this state, there are plenty of us that don’t like our tax money going to homophobic causes.
Mac Buckets
Soon this gay dude will own a good portion of the university. Perhaps an on-campus danceclub would be nice…
gratefulcub
But, always remember, the christians are persecuted ones.
form the LA Times,
Stand up for your right to be a Bigot. Homophobia is a god given right……not so much a right as an obligation.
gratefulcub
Dancing is the devil’s gateway activity to sex, and sex leads straight to hell.
Fun trip though.
capelza
John Cole…these posts are why I love you (in that internet, you are so awesome kind of way).
The Baptists (SBC) have gone completely fucking nuts. Half my family are SBC, and my beloved grandfather, the preacher, would be turning over in his grave at how the church has been regressing.
Grateful club…from that LAT article. I’m speechless ans disheartened. They are demanding the right to harass? DO they not see how…oh never mind. It’s too early in the morning to get so angry.
gratefulcub
Faith trumps reason every time.
Inherited ideas are curious things.
DougJ
Well, at least windsurfers like John Kerry aren’t running the country.
Joel
Cumberland should lose their state support over this. That said,
I support the right of free association. i.e., private organizations should be able to define their terms of membership exactly as they wish. If a private college wants to admit only left-handed people, they should be free to do so. And if a right-handed guy manages to fake his way into that college, but is later caught writing with a pen in his right hand, the college should be free to expel him, as long as it is clear that the college disclosed their rules up front.
Of course it is fair to debate why any college would want to do that, but I will insist that colleges should have the right nonetheless. Because I think diversity is good for higher education. A legal requirement that all colleges look and act the same will result in academic groupthink and, if it gets bad enough, speech codes.
gratefulcub
Joel,
I pretty much agree with you. But this is a publicly funded school.
Is it acceptable for a private institution to only accept white students? Black students?
I find this issue hard to deal with personally. I am for bending over backwards to protect free speech. So, the Boy Scouts can exclude homosexuals, I just refuse to support them in any way. My kids will never be allowed to join, and I don’t even buy girl scout cookies because they may be affiliated with the boy scouts (I am too lazy to find out, and I need to eat fewer cookies anyway).
Is this a free speech issue? Should large entities like the boy scouts be able to exclude homosexuals based on morality?
We all have a different sense of what moral is. What is to stop the next group from excluding kids from mixed marriages because of morality? It all comes from the same book, just different interpretations
SeesThroughIt
You beat me to that LAT article, gratefulcub. As Homer Simpson would say, the ironing is delicious–Christians will sue for the right to be exempt from the rules and be bigots, but if you point that out, then you, sir, are nothing more than an anti-Christian bigot. It’s a funny little game they play. Funny, but quite sad.
Mr Furious
Sorry, if they’re taking state money, their right to discriminate should vanish. Or the funding should.
Of course, I assume that is true in Kentucky, I could be wrong…
Either way, I can only hope this kid will be better for the experience. Perhaps he’ll get to attend a school not run by close-minded bigots.
ppGaz
Funny. But actually, I hope you are right.
Darrell
yeah, how outrageous that the Boy Scouts wouldn’t want homosexual scout leaders camping in the woods overnight with young boys. That’s just nuts, isn’t it?
Darrell
I agree with that
SeesThroughIt
Did you learn everything you know about Boy Scout troop leaders from the “Canteen Boy” sketch with Alec Baldwin, Darrell?
Mr Furious
Darrell-
Homosexual does not equal pedophile/molester.
Would you rather they go camping with the Department of Homeland Security?
ppGaz
The question is loaded unnecessarily. There is nothing “moral” about excluding gays just because some Bible-thumper says there is. It’s a bigotry issue much more than a moral issue. The “moral” question is just manipulative.
But that doesn’t answer the larger question. Can the Scouts exclude gays? I don’t know how the law parses that out. On the surface it looks a lot like Lester Maddox and his exclusion of blacks from his restaurant just as a matter of “preference” and property rights, according to Maddox. But as we see a few decades later, his principle didn’t fare well over time.
ppGaz
Yes, as a matter of fact, it is. We think nothing of having heterosexual people cavorting with children of opposite gender, because it isn’t the sexual preference that matters, it’s the behavior that matters. Only behavior matters.
The “camping with young boys” argument is a lie, and it’s intended to manipulate based on fear and bigotry.
Apparently, it has worked fine on you, Darrell.
docG
News flash, dude. The majority of men who sexually abuse children and adolescents are neither gay nor pedophiles. Sorry if the facts don’t fit your right wing fantasies.
Mr Furious
I grew up with a Baptist kid who later worked as a fundraiser for the Boy Scouts, and he is maniac about this stuff. and he never sees that not everyone thinks this way.
He now fundraises for one of the the last all-male colleges, Wabash College. I’m sure there are no gays there…
Davebo
PPGaz,
I’d say yes, they should be able to exclude gays if they choose.
The question is, should a public school that refuses to allow them use of their facilities because of this be denied federal funding.
The congress thought so, but I disagree strongly.
Paddy O'Shea
Speaking of schools with odd outlooks on the personal affairs of others and the world about them, isn’t it time you took the Scrutator Theological Institute’s final exam? This would be the written portion, of course. They don’t have orals because that particular word is threatening for them.
1) If pushing the nuclear button would help to bring about the fulfillment of all Biblical prophecy (see: End Times, The Apocalypse, The Rapture, God’s Cleansing Fire), would that make it the right thing for George W. Bush to do? Can the conscious decision of one man bring about a true fulfillment of these prophecies?
2) Will the “Eye of the Needle” suddenly widen when it is time for the likes of Dick Cheney and Jerry Falwell to pass through?
3) If Jesus truly is the Prince of Peace, how is it we, His truest and most devoted believers of all, are also such advocates for war? Who exactly would Jesus nuke?
4) Lots of older Americans are upset with the Bush administration for giving them what they feel is a cynically crafted and near unworkable Prescription Drug Benefit. Will their miserable griping at a time when America is at war with evil earn their worthless old asses an eternity in Hell?
5) It has been proven by Medieval Theologians that the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin is 1,001. No more, no less. So how is it that only 126 can dance on the head of GOP4Me?
Bonus Question. Credit awarded for the most creative and enlightnening responses.
6) How will you protect yourself from evil on June 6, 2006?
Some Other Brian Guy
But it’s ok for pedophiliac men to go camping with little girls?
This is just complete utter bullshit. I don’t see how you can possibly defend raping underaged girls, and yet you do by supporting Republicans.
Darrell
Sorry, but sexual abuse of children is the very definition of ‘pedophile’. I hope this information helps clarify things for you
Darrell
I love this. And you whackjobs think of yourselves as the ‘reality based community’, right?
ppGaz
I’m bookmarking this page for use the next time Darrell wants to trot out his “I’m not a bigot” charade.
I urge all lefties on the blog to do the same. If there was and doubt that Darrell is one of “them,” look no further than this thread.
“Camping with young boys.” Jesus. I feel like I have just been transported back to 1958.
Andrew
It sure seems that fear of homosexuality among the right wing is most often just repressed desire.
gratefulcub
ppGaz
You are twisting my words. The question is, can a group exclude people based on their own version of morality. To them, gay is immoral, so they are excluded. Is that legitimate? Currently it is, since the Boy Scouts won their case.
Should it be?
Darrel,
As a straight male, are you sexually aroused by young girls? It is truly the only reason I can think of that would make you think a gay man can’t be trusted around a young boy.
ppGaz
Fuck you, Darrell. You’re done here. Your lengthy masquerade as a reasonable righty is now permanently ended.
You’ll never post here again without me bringing back your “camping with young boys” post.
You fear-mongering, bigoted asshole.
Don
Gone? They’ve been whacko for years. In the early 90s they decided to boycott Disney over “gay day,” an event organized by non-Disney organizations where homosexuals from all over came to Walt Disney World on a specific day. Exactly what Disney was supposed to DO about this nobody ever seemed to be able to verbalize. Ask people at the gate if they were gay and tell them to shoo? Ban red shirts (or whatever identifying clothing they were wearing that year)?
ppGaz
No, I am pointing out that the question is using twisted words, which you have just expanded here.
“To them, gay is immoral.” That’s the twist. The fact that I declare your behavior to be “immoral” does not make immoral. Does it?
Darrell
Yes, because you have the power to ban me, right whackjob? And in case you didn’t know, camping with young boys is one of the things that Boy scout masters do.
neil
yeah, how outrageous that the Boy Scouts wouldn’t want homosexual scout leaders camping in the woods overnight with young boys. That’s just nuts, isn’t it?
Darrell, I know that you’re just trying to make yourself feel better since you didn’t qualify as a school bus driver, but really.. this wasn’t the reason.
ppGaz
Did I say ban, you lying sack? I said that I will be here to bring back this thread and your post every time you open your bigoted mouth on this blog in my presence.
That’s better than a ban, because it exposes you for what you are.
Mr Furious
Actually, Darrell, the definition of pedophile (I just looked it up) is a person who is sexually attracted to children.
That may seem like splitting hairs, but there’s actually a big difference between sexual preference and behavior.
I am sexually attracted to women, but that doesn’t mean I molest them. And because I am attracted to women does not mean I am attracted to little girls. The implication that homosexual men are automatically and uncontrolably attracted to boys is just as offensive as implying I would be sexually attracted to one of my daughters freinds.
SeesThroughIt
Yes, and you try to darkly insinuate that when the scout master is gay, the camping trips are just a pretext for the scout master to sodomize his scouts. Which is stupid, bigoted, and wrong.
gratefulcub
Darrel,
As a straight male, are you sexually aroused by young girls? It is truly the only reason I can think of that would make you think a gay man can’t be trusted around a young boy.
ppGaz
No, it’s solid, and the law’s foundation.
Thoughts and preferences are your business.
Your behavior is other peoples’ business.
Pedophilia is not a behavior. Child abuse is a behavior.
Only behavior counts.
neil
Besides, I think you’re all missing Darrell’s point. Think of what would happen to the _children_ if gay people were allowed to work in theatre!
John S.
And the majority of pedophiles are heterosexual, you jackass. I hope this clarify things for a bigot such as yourself that is trying to equate homosexuality with pedophilia.
Mr Furious
This is of course one of the big unspoken arguments against allowing gays to adopt. That they are all out of control perverts who molest their children…
gratefulcub
ppGaz,
Let me try a third time to phrase the question.
Is it legitimate for a private group to exclude people based on what that private group believes is or is not moral?
neil
gratefulcub, that depends on what it is that they believe is not moral. If it’s being black or a woman, then no. If it’s adhering to a different religion, then yes. The question is what’s more similar to being gay?
ppGaz
You apparently can’t write the question properly.
Let me try it for you:
Is is legitimate for a private group to exclude people from the group? The reason does not matter.
The answer lies in the nature of the group and its connections to other things. If the “group” is the owners and patrons of a restaurant, and the excluded people are black, or gay, or brown, or Chinese, or obese, or …. then the answer is probably “no.”
Declaring the unwanted people to be “immoral” does not change the equation. It’s just a manipulation. The excluded gays do not actually represent any actual threat, do they?
Ancient Purple
Darrell is now the official Balloon Juice bigot.
Congratulations, Darrell. You’ve earned the title.
Wear it with pride, brave soldier!
ppGaz
I would have said “Brave little soldier,” but that’s just me.
ppGaz
Let’s start a pool. How long before Darrell begins a “I am not a bigot!” campaign, declaring all lefties to be evil demons for suggesting otherwise? Making tortured and shrieked arguments?
I say, within 45 minutes from now.
Mr Furious
It’s not “splitting hairs” to ME, ppGaz. There is a world of difference between thought and action. In addition, being homosexual in no way means you would even have those thoughts, never mind a struggle not to act on them.
As you and I have come to understand, I have somewhat of a “zero-tolerance” policy on the matter of child molestors, but it doesn’t extend beyond those who actually act on that. Behavior IS all that matters.
Darrell is a straight-up homophobe and bigot. He might as well say that blacks can’t work in a bank, because they won’t be able to help themselves around all that money.
‘Cub’s point upthread regarding Darrell and young girls is spot on. Darrel is faced with the choice that either that fact is true or crystal clear evidence that his opinion about gays is fatally flawed and fucking retarded.
Mr Furious
Darrell’s campaign either starts now, or he slinks away and we do not see him in theis thread again.
ppGaz
He tries so hard to appear reasonable, and gets away with it a lot of the time. But today, he has blown his cover for good.
This thread will follow him forever as long as I am here.
gratefulcub
The reason does matter. There are thousands of reasons to exclude people. If they are convicted pedophiles (with abusive behavior) then they should be excluded from the boy scouts. Being black is not a legitimate reason, to me. But, is black or gay a legitimate/legal reason for exclusion?
Can catholic groups exclude baptists? homosexuals? women? mixed race children? people who talk to much?
The reason for exlusion matters. There are legitimate reasons.
But, who gets to decide what is a legitimate and legal reason, and what isn’t. The line is different for publicly funded groups and private groups. But, do private groups have the right to make their own rules about exclusion, with no limits?
ppGaz
In this case, no, it doesn’t.
I can’t trump the law by declaring you to be immoral.
Neither can the Boy Scouts. Whether they can exclude or not, another matter. But on the basis of “morality?”
No. Like I said, it’s a false assertion on their part, one that they cannot prove and one which is nothing more than their preference, their dislike, represented as “morality.” That doesn’t make it a moral issue.
ppGaz
Sigh. But the “morality” of gays is not one of them.
The Scouts’ saying otherwise does not make it so.
Paul Wartenberg
I have to ask was the theater arts program at that school so good enough that the gay guy NEEDED to go there?
There’s other theater arts schools out there, and not all of them are going to be run by bigots. Just go to another school, get your degree, and just inform people not to go to the school that kicked you out. Simple as that.
gratefulcub
?
That’s easy for me. You have as much choice in your gayness as your color, so it is like being white, not Baptist. But, that is why I used morality in the original question.
To some, it is even more of a choice than religion.
Maybe the evangelical fear of homosexuality comes from their own indoctrination. I am in no way trying to call Christians cultish, or anything else derogatory, but part of organized religion is passing it down to children at a young age before they can make a decision on their own. They fear that their children will be brainwashed with the GAY AGENDA, and will be helpless to fight it, just as they are helpless to disregard the story of Noah.
Their fear of the GAY AGENDA is hysterical.
gratefulcub
ppGaz,
Just to clarify, I am not accepting the argument on moral grounds. They are making arguments on moral grounds, and it was upheld by the supreme court. They excluded gays because they are a christian organization, and homosexuality is against the teachings of jesus christ. I can’t see anyway in which that is not exclusion based on morals.
Again, I think it is all bullshit.
But, who decides why you can and can’t exclude people from a private group?
John S.
That is scarcely the point, Paul.
Would you have advocated in the 1960s that an interracial couple whose marriage was illegal in the state they live in just pick up and move to a state that isn’t full of bigots? Would that have been a viable solution to that problem? If not, I scarcely see how the position you are advocating qualifies as a civicly responsible solution.
gratefulcub
Not to you and I. In fact, the thought of it pisses us off.
What if I change ‘morality’ to ‘behavior’?
Is it legitimate for them to exclude men that sleep with men, regardless if they are gay or not?
Johnny
Mr. Cole, you confuse me. Except for a few notable repups, Buckley, Goldwater (and as an old goldwater fan, I rarely see his views concerning liberty reflected in any republican platforms), 99% of all republicans are (and to the best of my knowledge, have been) against any kind of “out of the closet” homosexuality.
I would never accuse you of being a democrate. But it seems that you disagree with an awful lot of the actual republican platform from the last 20 years.
Just confusing, that’s all.
gratefulcub
This gets into the heart of the struggle within Christianity. He wanted to go to that school because he is a devout Christian, and it is a Christian school.
I believe that this brand of Christian will lose the long term war. I believe there are more Christians out there that look to the teaching of Jesus, as opposed to the teachings of Falwell and Dobson. Currently, they are having their religion used to manipulate them. I trust that they will eventually fight back and take back their religion(s).
I am sure they appreciate critiques and pep talks from devout non-believers like me;)
ppGaz
I haven’t read the decision, but I seriuosly doubt that the “moral” argument was upheld. Their right to exclude was probably upheld on some other grounds. The fact that they think it’s contrary to the teachings of Jesus is just a technicality. Whether it actually is or not, unproven, since Jesus is not here to testify in court. But even if Jesus himself said he were against it, you couldn’t prove any moral case. To do that, you’d need to prove the morality or lack of morality of the sexual preference, and that would be impossible. Sexual preference is not behavior, and the law is built around behavior.
Look at it this way. Suppose you’re a shepherd, and you crave sex with sheep? Does that make you morally unfit to herd sheep? If you go your entire life and never touch a sheep in an improper way, stuffing your craving and treating the sheep with nothing but respect … are you a less moral shepherd than the guy on the next hill who is repulsed by the idea of sex with sheep?
Some might argue that your moral character is stronger because you have overcome your desire and behaved well despite it.
I used the sheep example only to take the child abuse and its emotional component out of the picture for illustration. My sources tell me that you have no b-a-a-a-a-a-d thoughts about sheep.
In any case, the Scouts’ “moral” argument is just a smokescreen for bigotry. Whether they can exclude or not is not going to hang by that argument, though.
Note, the equation would change if we were talking about excluding actual convicted sex offenders. Now, you are in the realm of excluding behavior, an entirely different matter.
neil
It’s not legitimate, I think, because they have no ability and no right to consistently identify that behavior, gratefulcub. They wouldn’t be barring men that sleep with men, simply men that _they know_ sleep with men, which is an entirely different thing.
tBone
Huh? Which Darrell are you talking about?
If you’re talking about the one who posts here, I could count the number of times he’s appeared “reasonable” on a bad shop teacher’s hand and still have fingers left over.
Some Other Brian Guy
I love how you try to evade the issue of whether or not your support pedophilia towards little girls, by calling me names.
I notice you didn’t condemn it, so clearly you must support it, right?
The Other Steve
I hope you are right.
The Falwell and Dobson cult have driven a lot of reasonable respectful Christians away from the Church.
gratefulcub
ppGaz,
So, in your view, a private group does not have the right to set parameters on what they consider acceptable behavior for it’s members?
(I feel like I am defending the position of the bigots here, but I’m not.)
What I am saying is this: what can private groups do? Can the boy scouts exclude smokers from being troop leaders because it would lead to more scouts smoking in the future?
Don’t confuse my use of the word ‘moral’ as me making the case for moral exclusion. My point is that regardless of the legal rationale, the true reason the scouts excluded homosexuals was morality (their sick sense of morality, but morality none the less)
Darrel,
Still waiting to hear if you get hot and bothered by 12 year old girls.
Vladi G
Darrell’s into young girls? Not surprising, really. He’s always come off as one sick fuck, that’s for sure. And a serial liar.
t. jasper parnell
Could the Baptists exclude a student who doesn’t believe in the Trinity? Assuming a sort of conversion to the anti-Trinitarian position after a course on the Renaissance?
LITBMueller
Nope, but apparently it does come damn near close to “Republican,” according to this lengthy list.
LITBMueller
Whoops: I meant that “molester” comes close to “Republican.”
capelza
Oh, no disagreement from me…I was thinking about the late 60’s and 70’s. There was a brief moment when women actually were gainging ground, becoming ministers. My grandfather was the mentor/sponser of the first Black SBC minister in the state of Missouri (why he wanted to SBC I do not know). I think the insanity started as a response by the bigoted, anti-thinking wing of the SBC. A lot of thoughtful Baptists bailed when the rabid idiots took over.
Remember Jimmy Carter was SBC…though he left after the anti-woman wing got control.
Faux News
Darrell was obviously a passenger on the short yellow bus, not the driver. Hence why he can’t even get that promotion.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Because what you believe to be the actual Republican platform has nothing to do with traditional Republicanism.
Mr. Cole didn’t leave the party; the party left him.
fwiffo
Johnny, Mr. Cole exhibits what’s known as “independent thought.” I know that’s very confusing to a lot of conservatives these days, but you should try it some time.
I’m gonna start breaking the legs of people who throw around figures like “99%” or “99.999%” without actually having any actual data. 99% of the time, they’re just making shit up.
gratefulcub
Wedge politics in all it’s glory.
How many legislators care about gay marriage as a pivotal issue. Do they really believe that preventing gay marriage is that important?
nyrev
They let women be Scoutmasters.
Unless each and every one of those women is a lesbian, I expect Darrell will be registering his complaints to the Boy Scout Council immediately. Not doing so would mean he’s a dishonest bigot who probably gets turned on by 12-year-old girls.
Salvo
The Dale v. BSA case was decided on the grounds of the free association clause of the 1st Amendment, or rather, that a private organization can pick and choose any members it wants. However, the decision also implied that all this was contingent on the BSA not taking federal funds. As soon as they do, they’re no longer a private organization, and have to live by government rules. It’s only a matter of time before SCOTUS revisits the case in light of Congress’ attempt to force public schools, who rightly disassociated themselves from the BSA in light of the Dale decision, to provide them space.
Oh, and also, the Girl Scouts have absolutely no affiliation with the Boy Scouts, and after the Dale decision, took steps to let people know that they do not have the same discriminatory policies as the Boy Scouts. So eat those cookies with pride.
ppGaz
Now you are changing the question, and the issue.
Excluding behavior is completely different from exclusion because you declare the excluded group to be “immoral.”
If the Scouts are banning behavior, they have no need to exclude anybody. That’s what they have rules of behavior for. If the rules are broken, you are out.
Hardly the same thing.
And frankly, this is so obvious, I have to conclude that you are willfully jerking us around at this point. This is not rocket science here.
neil
Noted, without comment, from LITBMueller’s link:
DougJ
If Cumberland lets gay students in, then what next? NAMBLA members? Dogs? Man-on-dog? Where does it stop?
Paul Wartenberg
Okay, that’s what I wanted to know. Now I understand why this is a big deal to him. Apologies for the previous statement where I sounded insensitive that the student should just go elsewhere for the degree. Still, you may note at the end of my earlier statement, I encouraged said student to make known for others to avoid going to the school that was hate-filled enough to kick him out. Hurt ’em with dropping enrollment, see how the school likes having only 3 students left who don’t mind being associated with bigotry.
ppGaz
And no, I don’t mean “behavior outside of scouting.”
Clearly, you either don’t get this, or are just intent on making some point that isn’t right but you just want to make it anyway.
I can exclude you from my private club because I don’t like you. Or for any reason on earth. Not because the reasons are valid … because they don’t matter.
If I can exclude you saying that I think your family came from Mars, and make my exlusion stand up, THAT DOESN’T MEAN YOU ARE FROM MARS or that the Mars argument actually matters at all. It just means that I can exclude you.
Declaration of “morality” does not constitute actual morality, any more than declaring you to be Martian makes you a Martian.
But just for the record, what point are you trying to make, exactly?
ppGaz
Man on sheep, I would think. I mean, that’s b-a-a-a-a-a-a-d.
Darrell
What “campaign” are you talking about?
Orogeny
A question for Darrell…
The Girl Scouts allow male troop leaders. I haven’t seen any reports of any major problem with molestation. Exactly what is the difference between this and the Boy Scouts allowing gay leaders?
Mr Furious
Box turtles.
metalgrid
Speaking of Scouts, did any of you happen to catch the Penn & Teller Bullshit episode on them?
Also, it’s only the Boyscouts that discriminate. The Girlscouts don’t, because they haven’t been hijacked by the mormons like the Boyscouts have.
tBone
Personally I draw the line at dog-on-dog. Disgusting furry little perverts, with their immoral and unnatural same-sex butt sniffing – Satan has a special corner of hell reserved for them.
Mr Furious
I was referring to this:
Darrell
I think it’s fair to say that MOST parents would not be comfortable having their young boy(s) go on a camping trip with an openly homosexual scout leader. Why might that be? You loons are so extreme, you scream bigot at anyone who doesn’t follow your dogma.
gratefulcub
ppGaz,
Actually, I am not trying to make a point. I am truly asking a question, or two. I am in no way trying to jerk you around.
I am not implying morality is what anyone says it is. In fact, forget morality.
I am asking what private groups can legally do, and what you think they should be able to legally do. Is it still legal for a group to exclude blacks? Should it be legal for the boy scouts to exclude homosexuals? Currently it is, I have a problem with that. But, it is a private group, so they can. How far does that right go, and who gets to decide where to draw the line?
All are questions, and none are rhetorical.
Can I open a golf club and restrict memberships to conservative christian right wing republican straight white american males?
SeesThroughIt
You might also know Dennis L. Rader from his media name, the BTK serial killer. If I were a Darrell type (and thankfully I’m not), I’d say something like, “Behold the GOP: The party of pedophile serial killers!”
Andrew
Why does Darrell hate black people?
Andrew
Oh, sorry, I mistyped “gay.”
Mr Furious
Jonathan Mardukas: Ever had sex with an animal, Jack?
Jack Walsh: No, but I saw some tasty-looking chickens back at that barn over there.
SeesThroughIt
I draw the line at screwin’ cats doggy-style.
gratefulcub
Darrell,
As a straight male, are you sexually aroused by young girls? It is truly the only reason I can think of that would make you think a gay man can’t be trusted around a young boy.
tBone
As do most people who would like to keep functional genitals.
Darrell
Well let’s recap this thread:
There’s more.. but I know, you see yourselves as normal and ‘reality-based’, right?
Mr Furious
Guess what Darrell, that’s proabably true. But that doesn’t mean it’s right. It’s based on fear, ignorance and prejudice. Like so much of this anti-gay hysteria. Do you think it’s a coincidence that the statutes being used against gay marraige date bacak a hundred years and were originally written against blacks? That much of the fear-mongering against gays comes straight from the playbook of the same types of people who wouldn’t let their kids go camping with a black scout leader thirty years ago (if there was such a thing)?
You and people who think like you might be more common than I’d like to admit, I can only hope that ini forty years we look back at this with the same shame we look back at those that fought against the civil rights movement.
The Other Steve
I think it’s interesting how Darrell suddenly shut up when his style of argumentation was turned upon him by ‘Some Other Brian Guy’.
He’s annoying little fuck, isn’t he? I mean SOBG that is. Although Darrell is also annoying.
Mr Furious
Boo hoo Darrell, you had a chance to address this way upthread before it took off on you.
If you don’t find young girl’s arousing, why can’t you give a homosexual man the same benefit of the doubt?
Darrell
Would you agree that MOST parents would not want their young boys camping out with openly homosexual scout leaders? Is hateful bigotry the only explanation you and your side can offer for why parents would feel that way?
DougJ
All of you liberals who attack Cumberland for expelling gay students seem perfectly content to let Islamic fundamentalists behead homosexuals. Why is that, I wonder?
Ed
Darrell:
A pedophile is a person whose primary sexual attraction is to children. A child molester is not “the very definition” of a pedophile. Most are child molesters are opportunistic abusers of children with a primary attraction to adults of the opposite sex, not pedophiles. Of course, I wasted 8 years of my life learning the facts of mental health in higher education, so I cannot possibly compete with your vast store of stereotypes, right wing noise machine talking points and fundamentalist clap trap.
But thank you for your truthiness.
Mr Furious
See my 1:46 comment.
Some Other Brian Guy
Great point! So it’s ok for women to go after little boys.
And it’s ok for men to go after little girls.
The Republican party supports pedophilia! You heard it boys! Darrell’s a closet pedophile.
Mr Furious
Ed, thanks for backing up my eight seconds with a dictionary with your eight years of advanced studies. The concensus is clear—Darrell is a jackass.
SeesThroughIt
Man, you and me both.
Some Other Brian Guy
Would you agree that MOST parents would not want their young boys camping out with hot sexy openly nymphomaniacical women scout leaders?
Why won’t you condemn this behavior Darrell?
Why is this ok? The rest of us see this as wrong, why don’t you?
Sirkowski
If people are concerned about pedophiles, they shouldn’t send their kids to the Boy Scouts point…
ppGaz
That’s what I’m saying, then. Forget it.
Because it is not part of the legitimate question in this case.
The Scouts presumably can exclude me for not believing in the Spaghetti Monster, but legally, nobody cares about the Monster either. They can either exclude me, or not. The goofy reason they cite shouldn’t matter.
The alternative to my model of this is that once we allow exclusions on “moral” grounds, then reason is trumped. An assertion of morality is completely worthless, and isn’t reasonable here.
However, exclusion of behavior is the sound path if you ask me. I should be able to exclude behavior, and that would especially include any sexual behavior towards kids, regardless of the basis for the behavior, be it gay or straight, male or female, etc.
If I am the Scouts, and I’m smart, which apparently they are not, I would ask for the broadest and most general power to exclude. I can give you any test and do a background check and exclude you because I just prefer someone else. Why couch it in terms of gayness, or any other thing that exposes me to criticism?
Personally, I think the Scouts case is overblown. Scouting is not exactly taking off and growing, is it? I thought I saw figures that described it as a dying tradition. Good riddance, AFAIC.
I have some personal experience in the area we are talking about here, from when I was a kid, and it was mostly to do with the YMCA. The Young Mens’ Christian Association. So I tend be a little skeptical about organizations and claims of morality. The louder anybody yells at me about morality, the more skeptical I get.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Well, yeah. Didn’t you pay attention to that hot teacher/model down in Tampa? Rrrrrowrr!
ppGaz
Uh, no. Just recap your own posts. The thread is fine, it’s you that is fucked up here.
Case closed.
Jim Allen
Jesus said not one word about homosexuality.
Mr Furious
Yeah, but the activist courts and media elites were suppressing him…
ppGaz
Who owns the course? Where do the funds come from? etc.
Jim Allen
Oh, yeah, that whole war on his birthday thing. Forgot about that.
ppGaz
Better answer: Yes, but only if it’s Goofy Golf.
gratefulcub
Let’s go back to your post that spawned my response:
Are you not saying that is it reasonable for parents to think their kids are not safe from sexual assault if homosexual men take their kids camping OVERNIGHT (that word was used for a reason by you)? Isn’t that the intent of your post?
If it is, then you are saying that gay men can’t be trusted with boys. And I am saying the reverse has to be true, that men can’t be trusted with girls, and women can’t be trusted with boys.
You were inferring that homosexual men are a threat to young boys, weren’t you?
tBone
Just think of the kind of merit badges you could earn, though.
gratefulcub
I’m not that good at using christian language. How about ‘the bible’ instead of jesus?
Darrell
Scouts are known for outdoor camping trips. It is an integral part of scouting. You seem to be shocked by this ‘revelation’.
And yes, I believe most parents would feel it risky to allow their young boys to go on camping trips with openly gay scout leaders.
Some can be. Are you suggesting there could never be such a threat? because that’s what you sure seem to be suggesting
Darrell
that is funny.. I’d like to see the design of those badges
gratefulcub
Cheney was booed when he threw out the opening pitch today. I think they are missing the bigger story. He threw the pitch from 10 feet in front of the mound, and he still bounced it. Not quite manly enough to be a scout leader, huh?
ppGaz
Says Darrell the Official BJ Homophobe.
ppGaz
Limp-wristed bastard. First he can’t handle a gun, and now this. When did they start letting the Light in the Loafers brigade run the country?
MrSnrub
Gratefulcub sez:
Actually, the Boy Scouts are not a private group. They receive special treatment by the US Gubbermint
Penn & Teller’s show “Bullshit” just did an episode on the scouts.
Scouting for All: How your tax dollars support the Boy Scouts of America
gratefulcub
Do you even believe your arguments?
I think they are probably about the same threat at straight men in this situation.
The question is, do you believe gay men are more of a threat than straight men when it comes to molesting children?
And yes, I am shocked, SHOCKED, at the revelation that scouts camp overnight. honestly, everyone knows they camp overnight, you added the word overnight to imply that the homos would be shagging scouts OVERNIGHT.
gratefulcub
Great, you just killed our perfect example, now we must start this thread over, and find a private group of homophobes.
Darrell
Let me get this straight.. you believe that straight men are equally likely as homosexual men to molest young boys?
Ed
Darrell is correct that there is a possible threat from a homosexual man. However, the threat of sexual assault to boys is statistically much greater from straight men. Shall we then do away with Scouting, Darrell, or is this just another strawman argument to bash gays?
Jim Allen
Your original statement:
Homosexuality was definitely not against the teachings of Jesus Christ; he never mentioned it at all, in any of the gospels. If they’re excluding gays, they’re doing it for some other reason, not because they are a “christian” organization.
ppGaz
Wikipedia:
And …
Jim Allen
I’m just glad he didn’t hit a 78-year-old lawyer in the face with the pitch.
ppGaz
Darrell digs himself in even deeper, and defends his blatant homophobia.
gratefulcub
I find your tone hysterically funny. The SHOCK that someone would think that. Oh the horror of my idiocy, while I claim to be from the ‘reality based community.’
Yes Darrell, as anyone that studies pedophilia and sexual abuse of children will tell you, it isn’t about being gay in the least. Do you believe all the catholic priests are gay?
most sexual abuse of children happens within families (or the church). Married men, not men with boyfriends.
I’m still laughing at your shocked tone, and I can’t wait to hear your response.
Ben
This whole conversation is so South Park season 5.
And why do ‘Christians’ seem so willing to latch onto this arbitrary part of the bible. There are so many other parts of the bible they seem willing to just cast off… like “Thou shall not kill.”
Especially because I believe that most of the justification for the anti-homosexual bible based folks comes from Leviticus which is chock full of all kinds of other lunacy that the faith-based right wing choose to ignore.
gratefulcub
Jim Allen,
my point about homosexuality being ‘against the teachings of jesus christ’ had nothing to do with what is and is not a teaching of JC. I was talking about why a group can exclude someone.
If I try to make religious statements I will be wrong at least half the time. If I offended you as a christian, I apologize. I am actually aware that JC never mentioned homosexuality. I was just infering that the school was expelling him because THEY see his homosexuality as immoral, not because I do or because JC would have.
gratefulcub
I guess you haven’t been paying attention to all the oxen slaughtering taking place all over the country. They have to keep making those sacrifices.
gratefulcub
Because it is icky, and they don’t like it. They don’t understand it. Hence, it must be immoral. Enter Leviticus.
fwiffo
You think God was serious about that shellfish thing?
Darrell
I think all you lefties posting here have a winning issue with the Boy Scouts. In fact, you should make the Boy Scouts ‘bigotry’ against homosexual scout leaders a central campaign issue.. please make sure you scream the word ‘bigot’ extra loudly when yelling at parents who don’t want their boys going on camping trips with openly gay scout leaders. Louder now. I can’t hear you!
gratefulcub
Darrell,
I love how, when challenged, you disappear for a while and then hop back in like the previous conversation never happened. We had reached a pivotal moment:
Do you believe that homosexual men are a greater risk to children than heterosexual men? Can gay men not be trusted to not sexually abuse little boys?
And, I know, you can’t be a bigot for not hating gays. They are just wrong, so you can hate them morally.
tBone
You sound like someone who wears mixed textiles. Sinner.
Ben
Yes a large percentage of the voting public in the United States (including you based on your posts) is homophobic. THIS has nothing to do with homophobia being right or wrong. Thanks for your time.
Oh and a large number of Republican politcos have been busted for molesting children. No wonder a portion of Catholics are moving to the right.
ppGaz
Darell, BJ Homophobe In Chief, tries to change the subject.
Krista
Well, the stats say straight men are MORE likely to be molesters. The guy with 8 years of experience studying it says that straight men are more likely to be molesters.
So unless you have something definitive that proves otherwise, yes, that is precisely what we believe.
And that’s because it’s the truth.
Darrell
I think homosexual men pose a greater statistical risk to molest young boys than do straight men.. furthermore, it’s a safe bet that most parents share this view. But such views could only be held by wingnut bigots, right?
Darrell
No bigotry and stupidity there.. just typical deep thinking from the ever so tolerant ‘reality based’ community
ppGaz
Produce the facts, please. Straight versus gay, child sexual abuse.
Numbers. Nobody gives a fuck what you think.
Jim Allen
My point was that their argument was flawed, not yours. No offense was taken, no need to apologize.
gratefulcub
Exactly one study backs up your statement. Unfortunately it was conducted by a man with a mission. His ‘statistical’ method was to consider men that molest boys gay, and men that molest girls as straight. Amazing how he concluded that homosexual men were a greater risk, isn’t it?
And no, your view is not only held by ‘crazy wingnut bigots.’ Racism wasn’t only prevalent in wingnut families in the 50’s. Homophobia has been a cultural norm that has only recently began to change. There are many good decent homophobic members of this country, on both sides of the political spectrum.
De-segregation wasn’t popular when the left fought against it. Nor were women’s rights. Or any other social change that we have championed over the years.
The same story repeats, we take the unpopular political position because it is right. We get hammered for it, but we keep fighting. Eventually people come around to acceptance and tolerance. Your side tries to keep these changes from happening. That is your cross to bear, please try not to burn it.
nyrev
Funny, that looks more like another bullshit diversion than statistics countering the proven research that straight men molest more boys than gay ones do…
gratefulcub
Worst sentence ever.
We fought for de-segregation, and for women’s rights.
Jim Allen
Or by people who 1) refuse to come up with any statistics and/or experts who support their opinion, or 2) choose to ignore anything that contradicts their bigotry and homophobia. Such as yourself.
Perry Como
I think the moon is made of green cheese. Don’t try to bring up facts and statistics. Truthiness, bitches.
Ryan S
In response to Darrell —UC Davis Dept of psychology
ppGaz
Thanks, Ryan. Good find.
gratefulcub
Understand where they are coming from. They believe homosexuality is deviant. If they are gay, there is something wrong with them. It is a natural jump from gay to pedophile.
Here in KY, one of our basketball players was charged with rape. His accuser said that he put a rufi in a milkshake, and she passed out. A guy at work said that it made sense to him because: “Chuck Hayes is known to have a Tuesday girl and a Thursday girl.” I countered with, “Do you remember college? Sex happens.” They took that as me bragging somehow, and assured me that the step from promiscuity to rufies was a small one.
That is the moment that I realized that there is a segment of society that see all sexual liberation as deviant, wrong, and sick. They lump promiscuity, homosexuality and rape into one bucket. They don’t understand sex outside of marriage and procreation. The jump from homosexual to pedophile is a small step to them, when the rest of us know that the two have nothing in common, and there is no link between the two.
Sexual repression and pedophilia? There is a link there.
(I am not stereotyping a large group, or Christians. But, this is a segment of society)
Darrell
Contrary to that study, many child molesters are married or in relationships. And if it’s off-limits to classify any child molester as homosexual or heterosexual if they are not 100% following their narrow definition, that’s an absurdly high bar to hold..
Is this the most ‘credible’ study you could find?
Krista
Actually, Darrell, as someone said upthread, a lot of parents probably would feel uncomfortable letting their boys go camping with openly gay scout leaders. And in some cases, yes – it’s due to conscious bigotry.
I think, however, in most cases, it’s simply due to people being misinformed and fearful. In their heart, every parent knows that anybody could try to hurt their child. There is no identifiable enemy – no type of person to watch out for. And that scares the bejeezus out of them.
So, when given the opportunity to create a boogeyman out of someone who is tangibly different from them, many parents leap at the opportunity, because it allows them to feel that they are doing something to keep their children safer.
Their line of reasoning, even if subconcious, is that if Bob (who is different from them) is a threat, then Frank, Jill and Tom (who are similar to them) are not threats. They don’t want to be told that Bob is not actually a threat, because then it forces them to re-evaluate the threat possibility of Frank, Jill and Tom, who they trust, and who are just like them.
There’s a difference between yelling “bigot” at people, and giving them solid, factual information so that they can understand why their perception is incorrect. I think a lot of people have been working on the latter. However, to you, they’re just lefties and kooks, and so they’re not capable of anything resembling understanding and guidance.
gratefulcub
Ryan,
UC – Davis is a liberal bastion. You can’t trust anything they say.
gratefulcub
Greatest line ever. Darrell brings up ‘statistics’, refuses to produce a single study, and then jumps back in to argue the credibility of this study.
get laid.
Darrell
What percentage of the population do you think believes that? Because it looks pretty clear that you are digging deep to find an extreme viewpoint, and then using that extreme examply to try and tar anyone with that same brush who is merely concerned about their son going on an overnight camping trip with an openly homosexual scout leader. They are very different
LITBMueller
Darrell, you seem to be confused: not all molesters are men that are attracted to children of the same sex. Just take a look at the list. Here’s a sample:
Gotta love those family values!
Darrell
I never said otherwise. Next strawman please
Krista
It would be awfully sweet of you to back up that opinion with some facts, now wouldn’t it? We’ve all been waiting…
gratefulcub
No large brush here, and I am aware that is the way i said it. I was just looking for comments from others. There is a large portion of this country that believes in sexual repression. Marry, then procreate. Don’t have sex for fun. Don’t have sex outside marriage. It is all taboo.
When you don’t talk about sex, and you don’t have sex, you don’t understand it. That causes a problem.
gratefulcub
6 months?
tBone
He’d love to. DHS wasn’t hiring.
neil
And yes, I believe most parents would feel it risky to allow their young boys to go on camping trips with openly gay scout leaders.
I believe that the government is monitoring me via dental implants. Would you like a copy of my newsletter?
gratefulcub
i guess darrell is taking a time out to put together a list of ‘statistical’ studies that prove homos love sex with kids.
Mr Furious
Fuck Darrell. He’s never coming around, nor is he seeing the error of his ways…
Onto the real outrage:
How does this shit happen? If a baseball team calls and invites you to throw out the first pitch, say “Hold on a sec–” Put down the phone and go outside and throw a goddamn ball.
Ideally you should be throwing a decent pitch from in front of the mound, but I’ll give Cardiac Dick a break. But when you find that you cannot throw the ball fifteen feet in the air, go back inside pick up the phone and say, “No thanks.”
What an abomination.
neil
Maybe I missed something, but I didn’t see Darrell arguing anything based on facts or statistics, just on his impression that most parents share his irrational fear of teh gay.
Perhaps he is right. One would think he would instead work on convincing people that the fear is rational, but as a conservative, he believes that a threatening mob standing behind him makes his case in the best possible way.
gratefulcub
Thanks Mr F, I thought I was out there alone on that one.
Of course Darrell is never coming around. Just like the tin foil ball my cat plays with will never die. But it is fun to smack around.
gratefulcub
Neil,
You missed something
LITBMueller
My dream: I’m the manager of the Mets. President Bush comes ’round to Shea to throw out the first pitch. Just as he begins to rear back (in front of the mound, of course), I run out, waving my arms. I get to the mound, put out my hand like I want the ball from him, while I wave towards the bullpen.
Trotting out of the bullpen comes Hillary Clinton with a huge smile on her face.
Bush’s head explodes. Literally.
The world is saved.
:)
Darrell
yet they write (and there’s so much more where this came from)
the tolerance of the reality based community is so touching. They’re not kooks, they’re only trying to ‘help people understand’, right Krista?
gratefulcub
Darrell,
Why do you only argue with the most extreme points made in a thread, and ignore any rational discussion?
Darrell
Actually GC, you thanked him for saying that..you did so because like him, you’re an extremist too
gratefulcub
My Dream: W has to work a day in his life. Real ‘Hard Work’. He has to worry about paying rent. It teaches humility. Then he could be a president that ‘feels our pain.’ Oh, the good ol’ days.
gratefulcub
D,
Should have been more specific. I was thanking him for jumping onto my campy meme about Cheney bouncing the first pitch.
gratefulcub
So, now: why are homosexuals statistically more dangerous to children?
Darrell
Can you imagine John F. Kerry ever taking off his makeup and clearing brush or doing manual labor?
Krista
You’re very conveniently ignoring all of those who have given you factual information to back up their viewpoints, choosing to focus instead on those who insult you.
I also would not comment on “tolerance”, were I you, seeing as you are currently holding an opinion about gay men that is derogatory and not based in fact, and yet you refuse to take seriously any information that might prove your opinion to be erroneous.
C’mon Darrell – we’ve all known you too long to be distracted by the “taking umbrage” jackalope. You stated an opinion, claiming that you think that gay men are statisticaly more likely to be child molesters than are straight men. Many people have asked you for facts, studies, stats, or data which would back up this assertion. You have yet to provide any. You have every right to think whatever you want to think, but you cannot expect it to go unchallenged, when you’ve flat-out refused to either provide backup, or say “Look, I know it’s not factually proven, but it’s just the way I feel.”
neil
How can Darrell simultaneously argue that the left has nothing in their arsenal but insults, and then studiously avoid making his point in favor of calling his detractors extremists, kooks, stupid, hateful, bigots, and whackjobs?
Simple: He doesn’t believe any of it, he just wants to get a rise out of you. And he knows that DougJ is a rank amateur at it.
neil
Can you imagine John F. Kerry ever taking off his makeup and clearing brush or doing manual labor?
gratefulcub
Kerry is a useless pile of shit, I supported him as the lesser of two evils.
Can you imagine Bush volunteering to go to Vietnam?
Mr Furious
Exactly. For five hours you’ve been ignoring genuine questions in this thread and making shit up in response to real statistical evidence and knowledgable experts.
“Fuck Darrell” is a figure a speech.
Despite the fact that you are frustrating to deal with, I don’t actually wish you ill. Yeah, I probably should have said “Never mind Darrell” but then I wouldn’t be Mr Furious would I?
Ahem. [putting on my best “banana in the tailpipe” voice] “It is futile to engage further in this fruitless attempt to dissuade Darrell from continuing his descent into a miasma of ignorance and hatred.”
Darrell
Any parent who would be concerned about openly homosexual scout leaders taking their teenage son on overnight camping trips is a homophobic bigot.. and ignorant too.
Darrell
Well he did volunteer for the Texas air national guard at the very time his unit was fighting in Vietnam.
Mr Furious
Game. Set. Match.
Krista
Sorry. Please try again.
I think homosexual men pose a greater statistical risk to molest young boys than do straight men
gratefulcub
Darrell,
That was ridiculous. Those two statements don’t work together. You are taking my statement, mixing it with what you have heard from others, stirring, and acting indignant with that crapola of a response.
I AM the one that said there were many good people that hold homophobic ideas. Homophobic meaning fear of gays.
Oh, you don’t have any stats do you? We do, so you just question their ‘credibility’ because of your superior knowledge of the scientific method of psycho-studies.
Krista
Sorry. Please try again.
Either admit freely that this opinion of yours is completly unsupported, or provide some facts to back it up.
Now.
Krista
Ignore my 4:04 post. I hit submit instead of blockquote.
gratefulcub
.03% of the national gaurd went to Vietnam. .00% of pilots flying the plane he was flying went to Vietnam. At that time the national gaurd was used to stay out of Vietnam.
These are not controversial facts, please deal with them.
Ryan S
I also found this study talked about, but can’t find the actual study. Prolly need to subscribe to a journal.
Darrell
What factual information? that 1 study which discredits itself in the very first sentence? All I see are insults and typical leftist hyperventilating
I said I believed them to be more likely to molest young boys than straight men. I never said more likely to be child molesters, which is a more general term.
It must have been mere coincidence that almost all the priests who molested boys in the Catholic church were gay, because every good liberal knows that could never happen
Problem is, so many studies, as the one cited upthread by another poster, claim that if a man molests a boy, he couldn’t possibly be homosexual.. or if he at any time had a heterosexual relationship he couldn’t be considered gay.. and so forth.
gratefulcub
Oh, I hate it when this happens, but D just struck a nerve.
This cowboy fucktard of a president claims that we are disparaging the sacrifice and service of today’s national guard by claiming he was hiding in the guard in the 70’s. It is that son of a bitch that is being very disrespectful of every guardsman that has been to Iraq after signing up to protect the homeland.
Now you are doing the same effing thing. “He did sign up for the Texas Air National Guard.” Fuck that. And you know why it was a pile of shit when you typed it.
You ridicule us as the ‘reality based community’ and yet you still try to believe that he ‘served’. Mind numbingly ignorant.
nyrev
It’s practically a proverb.
fwiffo
See, this leads me to believe that Darrell is really just a not-so-clever spoof. Yeah, Shrub clearing brush on his ranch proves he’s a real hard worker. Heck, he even does it on weekends and during his vacation. Now, watch this drive!
gratefulcub
A very large percentage of the catholic church is gay. They repress their sexual feelings because they believe them to be against god’s will, so they join the church to save themselves from themselves.
again, sexual repression has a very direct link to bad behaviors.
If 82% of the catholic priests are gay, then gay and straight are the same threat.
Darrell
Bush was trained in the F-102.
What was that about ‘not controversial facts’ jackass?
gratefulcub
I don’t think so. DougJ and GOP4Me never get offended, personally. And, they always try to stay on topic and avoid personal attacks.
Darrell
Why would that be? Because your ‘non controversial facts’ were proven to be bullshit?
gratefulcub
the F-102 was deployed to Vietnam throughout most of the conflict, and the aircraft proved its value early by deterring North Vietnamese pilots from straying across the border. Perhaps more importantly, the F-102 and its Air National Guard pilots performed a vital role in defending the continental United States from nuclear attack.
you kidding?
What’s with the name calling? I thought you were above that.
neil
It must have been mere coincidence that almost all the priests who molested boys in the Catholic church were gay, because every good liberal knows that could never happen
Ah, now there’s a good one. Darrell thinks that Catholic priests are statistically representative of the gay population… that one doesn’t require any comment.
But I will grant him this: Parents should be worried about sending their children off with Boy Scout leaders who are also gay Catholic priests.
neil
What’s with the name calling? I thought you were above that.
No you didn’t. Darrell doesn’t have a single post in the thread that doesn’t contain real or implied name-calling.
fwiffo
Of course, the study says no such thing. It considered them to be heterosexual if their adult relationships were primarily heterosexual, and homosexual if their adult relationships were primarily homosexual. They were classified as bisexual if they had a significant number of relationships with both sexes. Those who were classified as fixated are not considered heterosexual or homosexual. As it happened, there weren’t any classified as homosexual in the study. This is not surprising because the size of the sample and the relatively low percentage of homosexuals in the population at-large.
gratefulcub
You are really arguing that the national guard was NOT a place to go to stay out of Vietnam. That it was not the reason there was a huge waiting list. Sorry, there is nothing controversial about that.
When your draft number was pulled, if you had connections you got into the guard to stay out of the jungle. Please, somebody, anybody……tell me I am full of shit here, if I am.
Darrell
Actually, DougJ just posts spoofs without substance (although often w/entertainment), and I think GOP4me would be the first to admit that he often engages in personal attacks, usually responding to those who attack him.
Speaking of personal attacks from the ever so tolerant reality-based community, why don’t you re-read this very thread for numerous examples?
Jesse Gardner
I’m not sure why no one gets this.
Love does not equal unconditional acceptance. God Himself does not forgive those will not ask for forgiveness. If someone is claiming to be a Christian and follow Biblical teaching, then clearly violates Biblical commands, we “speak the truth in love”.
Far too many people think that telling someone they’re wrong is unloving. Any good parent knows that the best thing you can do for a child when parenting is lovingly correct them. So it is here, in the schools view, someone claiming to be a Christian has done something that God has termed an “abomination”.
Certainly, God loves Jason, just like God loves Mr. Pedophile and God loves you and I and wants to see us repent of our sins. But Psalms makes it clear: “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me.” We can sever our relationship by holding on to something that’s wrong.
Now, you may not think that sodomy is wrong, but that’s a whole ‘nother discussion. Let’s just be reasonable and stop thinking these people are idiots for taking a stand on something they believe in.
gratefulcub
I am not responsible for what other people call each other. Only myself. I may say your argument is full of shit, or your statement is mind numbingly ignorant, but I have never called you a jackass, kook, or anything else. not out of respect, I just find it immature, you jackass.
neil
I still insist Darrell is a cunning spoof along the likes of DougJ. Everything he posts is a transparent attempt to make himself sound stupid and non-credible. Even that last one — he said ‘speaking of personal attacks from the ever so tolerant reality-based community’ when nobody was.
Darrell
Hold on. You made the statement “00% of pilots flying the plane he was flying went to Vietnam” and then went on to declare that your statement was ‘uncontroversial fact’. When proven wrong, you’re not owning up to it
And apologies for calling you a jackass. Your ‘uncontroversial facts.. deal with them’ got under my skin.. especially since your ‘uncontroversial’ facts were dead wrong
gratefulcub
We can still count on Stormy being real can’t we?
gratefulcub
Point taken. I was wrong. I shouldn’t have added an extra statement.
But, will you answer the real question?
Are you arguing the fact that the national guard was a place to go to stay out of the war? That is not a controversial fact. Very few went to war. W DID try to compare his service with those that are serving now, in the desert, and dying.
LITBMueller
I love how Darell decries a “study which discredits itself in the very first sentence,” and then follows that up with a link…to Rev. Moon’s Washington Times.
Priceless!!!!!!!
Darrell
I think if he was trying to take the safe way out, he wouldn’t have volunteered to fly such a dangerous aircraft. He would have instead found a job pushing papers
Ed
It doesn’t matter what you or I think, its the facts that matter. Most molesters of boys are not gay.
Darrell
Well, since gays make up maybe 3% or 4% of the population, it doesn’t seem wildly unreasonable that “most” molesters of boys are not gay. But how do you know for sure? Studies? Who defines whether or not they are gay?
LITBMueller
He did pretty much manage that, in April 1972, when he refused to take his annual physical (a little cocaine in the ‘ole urine, perhaps?) and got grounded. And, then, May ’72, he took off for Alabama, and was pretty much AWOL, which kept him from getting back in the cockpit again.
Now THAT’S the way to avoid Vietnam: join the guard, and then get yourself in trouble!!!!
neil
I think if he was trying to take the safe way out, he wouldn’t have volunteered to fly such a dangerous aircraft. He would have instead found a job pushing papers
Profiles in Courage
gratefulcub
Why was it a dangerous aircraft? It was used in Vietnam before he joined the guard, and it was used domestically while he served.
If you have to spend time in the military, you might as well have some fun while you are there. No one is denying that he is the testosterone filled type that would love to fly jets. He did, but it wasn’t a ‘dangerous’ aircraft, because it wasn’t being shot at.
Comparing his time in the guard, and the guard of the 70’s with the guard of today is dispicable. It takes some twisting to turn his service into something other than a desire to go to Vietnam.
I don’t blame him, I would have done whatever it took to stay out of the jungle. But, he can’t lie about why he did it now. If he wanted to serve his country in a war he found just, and do the ‘hard work’, he could have. The Army was even willing to take girly men like John F Kerry.
Darrell
By then, wasn’t it the case that his aircraft was being phased out?
LITBMueller
Not sure, but it doesn’t matter – he had a duty to peform.
Bush himself is being phased out right now. Doesn’t mean I don’t have to pay my taxes!
gratefulcub
I knew you would catch that, it was too easy.
But same sentiment to you, what makes you think that homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters, or abuse boys, than straight men.
and, who decides if they are gay or not? That didn’t seem to be a concern of yours when you said 82% of the guilty priests are gay. And you are talking about people with no sexual history.
Jesse Gardner
After reading the comments, let me clarify by saying I think Jason is wrong in the way someone who is cheating on their wife is wrong. They are both sexual “sins”, and are both just as bad as a President who lies and a web designer who indulges in pride.
The HUGE difference is that if I’m proud, I’m not asking anyone to accept my pride. And we shouldn’t accept a lying President. If someone confesses it as wrong, and acknowledges the fact that it’s a sin, that’s a whole different ballgame. But if a homosexual asks me to accept their homosexuality, I can no more accept a theif’s burglary. I may love that person, but I cannot call their wrong a right.
gratefulcub
But when he signed up for that plane, he had no idea that it wouldn’t be seeing much time above the jungle?
Darrell
I didn’t do that, but why would it be so ‘despicable’ if I had?
It’s not like Bush walked up the podium at the RNC and announced to the crowd that he was “reporting for duty” and followed it up with pics and clips of his service as the lynchpin of his campaign or anything
ppGaz
Get out, Darrell. Seriously, just get out.
YOU claimed that gay men were more likely to molest, but have produced (unless I have missed it) no data whatever to support the claim.
Go away. Beat it. Get lost.
gratefulcub
Bush did, in a debate. And it is dispicable because he used the service and sacrifices of today’s guardsmen to create a mirage of his service as something that it was not. He acted like he was just like the guardsmen serving today, and told us that to disparage his service, was the same as disparaging the service of these fine men and women serving today.
Wrong wrong wrong.
As far as Kerry goes, he is a joke. He was trying to show that democrats can be trusted with our security by ‘reporting for duty.’ Pitiful
Really, throwing Kerry back at me as a response on bush is useless, I have less respect for Kerry than you do.
SeesThroughIt
Boy, howdy! The kids have a very good chance of being molestered!
Darrell
Just anecdotal…based on what I’ve seen. I’ll go out on a limb here and say that I also think that heterosexual men are more prone to pushing sex on teenage girls than homosexual men
SeesThroughIt
Weird. I guess you can’t do strikethroughs in blockquotes or something? It looked fine in the preview.
gratefulcub
Jesse,
I am not fully following what you are saying. And, I can’t find a post by Jason.
Are you saying that homosexuality is wrong, and you don’t have to pretend otherwise?
I know you aren’t saying it is ok to cheat on your wife, but I can’t find Jason’s post.
I believe i know where you are coming from, so let me pose one question to you:
Why do you think homosexuality is a sin on par with burglary?
Pharniel
the boy scouts of america are a disgrace to scouting. they’re looked at as either “the god squad” or “fucking assholes giving scouting a bad name” by international scouting.
’cause, y’know, everywhere else in the world (that are a part of whassshisname’s little experiment)there are scouts. not boy scouts, not girl scouts, just scouts.
they wern’t co-opted by mormons. mormons are a little to moderate for most of the nutjobs at the national level.
having been in scouting during some of the more reationary changes, national leadership sounds like they want to generate a manly orginization for men, by men, in a manly man sort of way.
or in short, they struck me as fucked up twits who were co-opting a good idea for thier own selfish goals and desires.
gratefulcub
Do tell these anecdotes.
Oh go on!
I still think you are missing the point here. Pedophilia isn’t about gender. You are saying that homosexuals are more prone to abuse kids (of either gender) than heteros. Aren’t you?
ppGaz
The relevant fact will be the rate of abuse/molestation by gay versus straight men.
What are those rates, Darrell?
And if you don’t know, why are you shooting your mouth off about the issue?
If one actually had the concern, wouldn’t that be the first question he’d ask, and the one he wouldn’t proceed without getting answers to?
Darrell
I think many gay men are attracted to younger boys.. I’m not so sure why so many here consider that such a controversial opinion
and gay men did create NAMBLA man/boy love association, did they not?
Darrell
Not sure if there have been credible studies on this subject either way. Also, I’ll bet boys would be much more reluctant than girls to report sexual abuse.. can’t prove that one either, but I think it’s probably true
ppGaz
Says Darrell, our resident piece of shit homophobe.
Where are the facts, Darrell? Produce them or STFU.
neil
Darrell, it seems like you’ve now opened yourself up to the argument, used against you already, that a gay Scout leader is no more of a threat than a female Scout leader. I can only assume this is intentional, to illustrate the point that pedophilia does not have anything to do with sexual orientation.
fwiffo
Darrell, you’re the one making the positive claim, and you thus bear the burden of proof. You’re just humming along with your “I think it’s probably true” nonsense without having any sort of facts to back up what you’re saying. And yet you’re shocked that people call you a bigot.
It’s espescially telling which questions you’ve refused to answer. Here’s what you said that seems to have started it all:
Do you think that there should be the same sort of concern for heterosexual women camping in the woods overnight with young boys? Do you think there should be the same sort of concern for heterosexual men camping in the woods overnight with young girls?
Andrew
Goldstein, J. et al. (2006). My dog is not gay: A probative finding. Anals of Right Wing Proctology, 1, 12-27.
ppGaz
Speaking of proctology, it appears that Darrell has pulled his support for homophobia right out of his ass.
Ad we said he couldn’t find his ass with both hands! We stand corrected.
Darrell
Not at all. It’s your side’s modus operandi in responding to those with whom they disagree
No. Women are less likely to molest children than men. And when I was 14 yrs old, I was praying that a couple of my female teachers would molest me.. my friends were praying the same thing for themselves too
That is most definitely something to watch out for. I think parents of young girls would be right to be concerned about that
neil
I just want to remind anyone who wants to jump on the breaches of logic in Darrell’s last post that he is fully aware of them, having put them there on purpose.
John S.
Not at all. It’s what non-bigots call people who make bigoted remarks like most pedophiles are homosexuals and many gay men are attracted to younger boys.
According to WHO? You? Your opinion has no credibility whatsoever absent solid evidence.
tBone
Now, if only his head would follow . . .
Pooh
Point: Jackalope
Though I am categorizing them now, after yesterday’s classification of fallacious clintondidittoonous (in retrospect, ‘fellatious’ would clearly have been funnier. I go to post with the snark I have, not the snark I wish I had) here we have “Darrell,” a fine speciment of fallacious nonengagementonthemeritsorum.
DougJ
Can you imagine John F. Kerry ever taking off his makeup and clearing brush or doing manual labor?
That really does sound like a spoof. Could anyone other than Jeff Goldstein be dumb enough to mean something like that?
The Other Steve
I don’t think Darrell is a spoof. I know way to many idiots who think just like him.
His achilles heal is he doesn’t like being told what to do. The fact that he doesn’t mind telling others what to do is not hypocritical, at least in his mindset.
StupidityRules
The Senator uttered:
And then one of them did? It would explain a lot…
Jesse Gardner
@gratefulclub
The Jason I was referring to is the Jason this article is all about (see original post). Have we all forgotten why we’re here? (Classic case of cartoon dust cloud with fists protruding and the issue tiptoeing off!)
As I said in a previous comment, as well as on my own site, it really goes back to what you base your morality on. Seems as though most people in this thread are basing their sense of right and wrong (can we call it that?) on personal experience or cultural norms. That approach really washes away any moral absolutes and right and wrong are done away with in a poof of preference. If you like that sort of thing.
Mine is based on my understanding of the Bible. You may not agree with the Bible at all; but as I said, that’s a whole ‘nother issue.
What you should all at least understand is that if I believe the Bible teaches something to be wrong, I can’t just say it’s right even though it’s acceptable by cultural norms? Stop aiming your guns at Christians and start aiming your guns at the Bible. (I would’ve thought you’d figured that out by now!)
Baron Elmo
Jesse–
Does that mean that you follow the other lifestyle laws listed in Leviticus (not eating pork or non-fish seafood, not wearing clothes of blended fabrics, etc.) as well? I’m not being snarky here, honest – just curious.
And what’s your take on lesbianism? That isn’t mentioned in Leviticus at all, you know… only sex between men is.
Incidentally, there was a book published about fifteen years or so ago, claiming that the prohibitions against homosexuality do NOT appear in the original Biblical texts, but were added hundreds of years later by the moral arbiters of that time. Anyone here ever heard of that book? I read a review of it years ago… but can’t recall author or title, and have been interested in reading it ever since.
Christie S.
Salvo,
As a Girl Scout Leader, I thank you for your support.
gratefulcub
You can blame books, I will continue to hold people accountable.
Christie S.
Is bigotry the reason? Yes. Just because an opinion is widespread doesn’t make it right.
Krista
Christie, you do realize he just wants you to send him free cookies, right?
Rick DeMent
Just wanted to interject something here that bothers me about the Boy Scout ruling.
Mr. Salvo mentioned this up thread, as have others:
Here is the weird part; there is no mention anywhere in the constitution of a “right” to “free association”. It is a completely extra constitutional construct that was obviously created by activist judges. Now I guess you could argue it under the 9th, that the right to “free association” is an unenumerated right, using the first ammendment claus right to peaceably assemble as a penumbra. But this “right” was created out of whole cloth by the judiciary during the pre-civil rights era primarily to exclude black people from white social organizations, yet it is one wholly and completely embraced by those who reject out of hand the notion of a right to privacy.
Now I am a big fan of the 9th amendment so I don’t have a problem with private organizations freely establishing any membership requirements they want. But they have to be completely and wholly private. They cannot receive any fund out of any public treasury nor can any due, fees, or expenses be claimed for any tax deduction to any level of government (which would kill off a lot of “private golf clubs since meals and fees are often written off as entertainment expenses).
Christie S.
LOL. Too late. The cookie sale has ended for the year.
Jess
Darrell is absolutely correct in this instance. Women are also far less likely to commit violent crimes, according to DoJ statistics. So in the spirit of Swift, may I propose that we start severly curtailing the rights (or entitlements?) of men to partake in any activities that might allow them opportunities to sexually molest other people or commit violence (including invading or nuking other countries without careful review by a panel of women)?