KevinG Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 You realize this already happened in the Trail Life USA movement. Unfortunately / fortunately (depending on how you look at it), they decided to exclude non-christians like us. We can sneak in a few Mormons and then sue them when they come out of the closet. That would be in the interest of diversity and fairness right? 3
Scott Lloyd Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) It is just how the gays that I talk to feel about this issue. I have read them several posts from this thread including some of yours. Their reaction is .... Nothing has changed in the cultural of the Mormon church or BSA towards gays.There never was any war waged by the Church against gays. So if nothing has changed, that's good news for them.Out of curiosity, what do your gay friends think about the apparent likelihood the Church will withdraw rather than tolerate the hijacking of the movement? Edited July 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Gray Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 There never was any war waged by the Church against gays. So if nothing has changed, that's good news for them. I rather think that if some group sought to take away our marriage rights, we'd feel attacked. And rightly so. 2
jkwilliams Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 I rather think that if some group sought to take away our marriage rights, we'd feel attacked. And rightly so. You would think so, wouldn't you? 2
ttribe Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 "Soft core porn?" In Boy's Life? I guess I have to ask what you have in mind when using this phrase because, at first blush, this strikes me as an utterly bizarre concern. To me, sex between men and people who try to have their sex altered surgically are still bizarre concepts.I recognize that to many people they aren't. That being the case, it's not out of the realm of possibility that stuff I don't want entering my home or served up to my family might be infiltrating traditionally benign sources such as Boy's Life, especially after this recent policy change. Okay, but, you specifically mentioned "Soft Core Porn," so I guess I'm still trying to get where you were coming from. I understand you think "sex between men and people who try to have their sex altered surgically are still bizarre concepts," but that's entirely beside the point of my question. Has Boy's Life had content that rises to the level of your concern prior to this decision by the BSA? Has there ever been heterosexual "soft core porn" in Boy's Life? I'm trying to understand why you think that would change now. No, Boys' Life up to now has been perfectly safe. But it has not been until this past week that BSA has been compelled to admit practicing homosexuals as Scoutmasters.It's a whole new game plan. I'm really not trying to be combative, but you seem to be avoiding the pornography issue now, even though it was you who brought it up. What is the link, in your mind, between the alleged increased likelihood of Boy's Life magazine including "soft core porn" in its pages, and the admission of "practicing homosexuals as Scoutmasters?" Why is it that you said this in the first place? Actually, it's the subtle "Heather Has Two Mommies" sort of thing that has me more worried than the more explicit, in-your-face stuff that can be more easily spotted and rejected.I won't have my family force-fed cultural morés that clash with our values.But yes, if things get to the extreme of where they're headed, Boys' Life could one day be a showcase for a virtual gay pride parade. I realize this thread has been moving fast, so I'll provide a link, but would you mind responding to my post? http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65765-bsa-allows-gay-leaders-church-responds/?p=1209520335 Thanks. You know, Scott, I'm quite confident you would not allow someone to ignore a very plain question from you the way you have ignored mine. If you now regret your original statement regarding 'soft core porn' in Boy's Life, there is no shame in saying so. Otherwise, it seems quite strange you are unwilling to elaborate on what you meant. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) Hey Scott... You've stated that you believe the Church will end its affiliation with the BSA over this new policy change. Care to put a timeline to that prediction and start another countdown clock?I've not made a prediction. I've commented on the recent Church news release, as others have done, and expressed my heartfelt opinion that now is the time to cut ties. But I have no way of knowing what the Church will do. If you're going to quote me on something, quote that. Edited July 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
KevinG Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 I rather think that if some group sought to take away our marriage rights, we'd feel attacked. And rightly so. Other than revenge, what do marriage rights have to do with the BSA policy on gay scout leaders? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) You know, Scott, I'm quite confident you would not allow someone to ignore a very plain question from you the way you have ignored mine. If you now regret your original statement regarding 'soft core porn' in Boy's Life, there is no shame in saying so. Otherwise, it seems quite strange you are unwilling to elaborate on what you meant.I have responded to your question. You may not like my response, but that gives you no call to say I haven't responded.Reminder: The board has an asked-and-answered rule. Edited July 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
jkwilliams Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Other than revenge, what do marriage rights have to do with the BSA policy on gay scout leaders? They both involve marginalizing and excluding gays. But the point was that Scott said there was no "war on gays." I think that's probably a hyperbolic phrase, but there is no doubt that gays felt (and still do) that their rights are under attack. They were in California, as Prop. 8 was expressly about denying people rights they had previously been granted.
ttribe Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 I'm really not trying to be combative, but you seem to be avoiding the pornography issue now, even though it was you who brought it up. What is the link, in your mind, between the alleged increased likelihood of Boy's Life magazine including "soft core porn" in its pages, and the admission of "practicing homosexuals as Scoutmasters?" Why is it that you said this in the first place? I have responded to your question. You may not like my response, but that gives you no call to say I haven't responded. No, you danced around my question and never answered the most recent request for elaboration (above).
Scott Lloyd Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) No, you danced around my question and never answered the most recent request for elaboration (above).A showcase something on the order of a gay pride parade would amount to soft core porn in my opinion.You said you were not trying to be combative, but your continued badgering amounts to that. Edited July 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
KevinG Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 They both involve marginalizing and excluding gays. But the point was that Scott said there was no "war on gays." I think that's probably a hyperbolic phrase, but there is no doubt that gays felt (and still do) that their rights are under attack. They were in California, as Prop. 8 was expressly about denying people rights they had previously been granted. Equal access to tax and legal benefits, housing, and commerce for same sex partners is not the same as the right to belong to a private club when your behavior and/or teachings are in opposition to what that clubs membership standards are. Not by a long shot. I was not comfortable with the LDS Church taking a stance on Prop. 8 (of course I'm always squeamish when it comes to the church taking a political stand on much of anything.) 1
ttribe Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 A showcase something on the order of a gay pride parade would amount soft core porn in my opinion. But, this still doesn't answer the question as to why you believe such a thing would make its way into Boy's Life when there's no history, whatsoever, of said magazine allowing the corresponding heterosexual example (Mardis Gras?) into its pages. Why do you believe there will be such a change? Do you believe that the average homosexual is more likely to want to expose teenage boys to erotic images than the average heterosexual? 1
Gray Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Other than revenge, what do marriage rights have to do with the BSA policy on gay scout leaders? It has nothing to do with the BSA scout leader thing. It's related to CB's comment regarding a "war on gay people"
Gray Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 A showcase something on the order of a gay pride parade would amount to soft core porn in my opinion. There are plenty of straight counterparts to that kind of thing.
rockpond Posted July 30, 2015 Author Posted July 30, 2015 I've not made a prediction.I've commented on the recent Church news release, as others have done, and expressed my heartfelt opinion that now is the time to cut ties.But I have no way of knowing what the Church will do.If you're going to quote me on something, quote that. Got it. I apparently misunderstood a couple of your early comments. Thanks for clarifying. Not to be argumentative or belabor the point but I was doing some reading, looking for "policy", and trying to whittle this issue down to its basics. So, I'd like your thoughts on the following... From MormonsandGays.org:"Members of the Church who have same-sex attractions, but don’t act on them, can continue to enjoy full fellowship in the church, which includes holding the priesthood, carrying out callings, and attending the temple." From the BSA:"On Monday, July 27, the National Executive Board ratified a resolution that removes the national restriction on openly gay adult leaders and employees. Chartered organizations will continue to select their adult leaders and religious chartered organizations may continue to use religious beliefs as criteria for selecting adult leaders, including matters of sexuality." I see those two statements as being perfectly compatible policies between the two organizations. Do you? And, if you feel that the Church should cut ties with the BSA at this time, is it because these statements are not compatible or because there are extenuating circumstances? Threat of lawsuits for the Church? BSA drifting too far from our priorities? 2
california boy Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 There never was any war waged by the Church against gays. So if nothing has changed, that's good news for them.Out of curiosity, what do your gay friends think about the apparent likelihood the Church will withdraw rather than tolerate the hijacking of the movement?They could care less what the church does or BSA You may think that the church didn't go after the civil rights of gays but that belief if not shared by the gay community. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 There are plenty of straight counterparts to that kind of thing.Is there anything more quintessentially indicative of the gay culture today than a gay pride parade?
ttribe Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Is there anything more quintessentially indicative of the gay culture today than a gay pride parade? But, why do think images from such a thing would be published in Boy's Life when none of the straight counterparts have?
Scott Lloyd Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 They could care less what the church does or BSA You may think that the church didn't go after the civil rights of gays but that belief if not shared by the gay community.The proper expression of what you are trying to say is "couldn't care less." See my thread on garbled idioms. And opposing the redefinition of marriage is not "going after civil rights." 2
ERayR Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Relatively quickly at a cost of ? to an individual troop. If one takes into account the FOS it would probably be a net gain (monetarily) to the troop.
jkwilliams Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 The proper expression of what you are trying to say is "couldn't care less." See my thread on garbled idioms.And opposing the redefinition of marriage is not "going after civil rights." It is when that opposition results in denying previously granted rights. 1
Gray Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) Is there anything more quintessentially indicative of the gay culture today than a gay pride parade? Yes. Musical theater, dance, cinema, and the arts generally. I don't like the explicit nature of gay pride parades, but I get the impression that the point of them seems to be to freak out straight people. Maybe not the most productive exercise. The gay people I know are more likely to go hiking, surfing and yes go to the theater than to wear bondage gear on a float. Of course I know some straight people who do that kind of thing in other kinds of parades. Edited July 30, 2015 by Gray 1
jkwilliams Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Yes. Musical theater, dance, cinema, and the arts generally. I don't like the explicit nature of gay pride parades, but I get the impression that the point of them seems to be to freak out straight people. Maybe not the most productive oversize. The gay people I know are more likely to go hiking, surfing and yes go to the theater than to wear bondage gear on a float. Of course I know some straight people who do that kind of thing in other kinds of parades. The Castro Street Fair is not necessarily indicative of how most gay people live their lives. Ironically, the reason gay pride parades can be explicit is that they are a reaction against being forced underground for so long, a sort of "screw you" to the forces that suppressed them in the first place. 2
ttribe Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 I have responded to your question. You may not like my response, but that gives you no call to say I haven't responded.Reminder: The board has an asked-and-answered rule. A showcase something on the order of a gay pride parade would amount to soft core porn in my opinion.You said you were not trying to be combative, but your continued badgering amounts to that. Looks like a couple of statements were added after I responded to these posts previously. Again, I don't believe you would allow anyone to ignore a very clear request for elaboration the way you have ignored mine. Hiding behind your interpretation of rules and now blaming me for "badgering" you when all I asked for was a better understanding of the reasoning behind your statement just solidifies my new belief that you just don't want to provide an answer. I can only speculate, at this point, that you do regret your public statement of fearing the future presence of 'soft core porn' in Boy's Life magazine. Why you believe that to be an eventuality still remains a mystery to me.
Recommended Posts