Thread: Boy Scouts of America refuses to enter 21st Century

And I support them wholeheartedly.

Never liked 'em, never will.

Religion aside, it is completely unnatural.

Originally Posted by Fechtel

And I support them wholeheartedly.

Never liked 'em, never will.

Religion aside, it is completely unnatural.

Unnatural in what sense?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Unnatural in what sense?

Procreation is the ONLY reason for our existence. Heterosexuality is natural because it creates procreation.

Homosexuality is unnatural because there is no procreation.

Originally Posted by Fechtel

Procreation is the ONLY reason for our existence. Heterosexuality is natural because it creates procreation.

Homosexuality is unnatural because there is no procreation.

See when I think of something as being natural, I think of something happening or existing outside of human interference. So it would seem that homosexuality is completely natural for a few reasons. The first being that a human has no control over whether they are homosexual or not, and thus such a thing is natural. The second is that there are recorded cases of nonhuman animals engaging in homosexual behavior of their own accord, i.e. humans didn't force them to do such acts.

Procreation being the only reason for our existence sounds very primitive, unless you mean it is the only way in which we can exist at all.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have Mayflow 2.0

Now, back to conversation.

The Scouts’ chief executive, Bob Mazzuca, contended that most Scout families support the policy, which applies to both leaders and Scouts.

Wow, you know, I never really realized the boy scouts sucked so hard.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

See when I think of something as being natural, I think of something happening or existing outside of human interference. So it would seem that homosexuality is completely natural for a few reasons. The first being that a human has no control over whether they are homosexual or not, and thus such a thing is natural. The second is that there are recorded cases of nonhuman animals engaging in homosexual behavior of their own accord, i.e. humans didn't force them to do such acts.

Procreation being the only reason for our existence sounds very primitive, unless you mean it is the only way in which we can exist at all.

Maybe anti-natural would be a better term. It goes against nature, or against the human species, because if all of us were gay, there would be no human species.

And this is without me bringing religion into this, because it would be a pointless debate.

Originally Posted by Fechtel

It goes against nature

dude ARE YOU FUCKING LISTENING??????

I'm not even gonna say it. Reread that post you FUCKING QUOTED and explain to me why what you just said is a FUCKING STUPID REPLY to said post.

I meant it is anti the human race. Surely you agree that if everyone turned gay it'd be pretty bad for the human race?

And what's with the shouting and swearing? You need anger management.

Originally Posted by Fechtel

Maybe anti-natural would be a better term. It goes against nature, or against the human species, because if all of us were gay, there would be no human species.

And this is without me bringing religion into this, because it would be a pointless debate.

Changing "un" into "anti" makes no difference. It exists in nature, hence it is natural. Humans can be homosexual by default. Nonhuman animals can be as well. That is the way of things without humans lifting a finger.

Some people being gay is actually a benefit to reproduction and increases the chances of human survival. Why bring up everyone being gay? Everyone being gay isn't natural but 10-15 percent of the population being gay is natural. If a person is gay they don't have children and instead use the energy needed to raise children to support their family and help other raise children.

Some people being gay is both natural and pro human race.

Originally Posted by Fechtel

I meant it is anti the human race. Surely you agree that if everyone turned gay it'd be pretty bad for the human race?

That's why most people aren't gay.

Imagine that.

Anti-human-race is the term I prefer.

Originally Posted by Fechtel

I meant it is anti the human race. Surely you agree that if everyone turned gay it'd be pretty bad for the human race?

This is an entirely different argument from saying it is unnatural, and Alric has addressed it above.

Originally Posted by Fechtel

Anti-human-race is the term I prefer.

Look, equivocating and trying to find new ground to stand on can be a fun mental exercise, but it doesn't change the fact that you have no real argument against homosexuality.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Look, equivocating and trying to find new ground to stand on can be a fun mental exercise, but it doesn't change the fact that you have no real argument against homosexuality.

I could argue from religion, but to an atheist this would be pointless.

Originally Posted by Fechtel

I could argue from religion, but to an atheist this would be pointless.

To anybody with a sensible mind about what homosexuality is it would be pointless. If religion is your trump card I think you should quit while you're behind.

Here's what's so weird about this - how do they know if someone is gay or not when inducting them into the Scouts? I guess with the Cub Scouts it's too soon to tell, so they have to wait and watch for signs. And then what? I can just hear the hushed whispers, the steely-eyed accusations. "I've been watching that one - he's a - you know - a TINKERBELL!! We've got to get him away from the good ones before they get infected. Oh, and while we're at it... about that new boy that joined two weeks ago. Yes well, I don't like it. No, not gay - but he's - black. Do we really allow that kind of thing around here? If so, then I'm taking my little Johhnie out... I thought the Boy Scouts were more selective than this!"

Geeze! Well, I guess now we know the Scouts are a recruiting campaign for the Little Republicans of America.

Presumably when they say gays they mean out-of-the-closet gays.

Yeah, but if that's their policy, then what do they do when it becomes clear they let somebody in who then begins to demonstrate the signs?

Then he should be thrown out.

.. or she? There are Girl Scouts too. Or are female gays not as revolting?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Yeah, but if that's their policy, then what do they do when it becomes clear they let somebody in who then begins to demonstrate the signs?

They'll be thrown out: "In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position." Boy Scouts of America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.. or she? There are Girl Scouts too. Or are female gays not as revolting?

I don't see anything relating to lesbianism in the wiki page, but they might treat them the same as gays.

Originally Posted by Fechtel

I could argue from religion, but to an atheist this would be pointless.

Especially since your holy book gives no sound basis for anti-gay sentiment.

Originally Posted by Fechtel

And I support them wholeheartedly.

Never liked 'em, never will.

Religion aside, it is completely unnatural.

regardless of whether or not you agree with the policy, will you at least concede that it is bigotry against gay people. If yhe boy scouts denied black people it would obviously be racist. It is at the very least clearly a discriminatory policy.