Holder: Boy Scouts’ ban on gay adults ‘perpetuates worst kind of stereotypes’

  • metta

    Posts: 39144

    Jun 11, 2014 6:33 AM GMT
    Holder: Boy Scouts’ ban on gay adults ‘perpetuates worst kind of stereotypes’

    "If these men and women are fit for military service, then surely they are fit to mentor, to teach, and to serve as role models for the leaders of future generations."


    http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/06/holder-boy-scouts-ban-on-gay-adults-perpetuates-worst-kind-of-stereotypes/
  • Dazza73

    Posts: 23

    Jun 11, 2014 11:51 AM GMT
    Disagree , children sould hold their innocence for as long as they possibly can , having say this parents talk and sometimes a bit louder than usual , this could affect a lot of children ,us as adults know exactly what we want , just saying , children have the rights to be ignorant to society
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2014 1:34 PM GMT
    Dazza73 saidDisagree , children sould hold their innocence for as long as they possibly can , having say this parents talk and sometimes a bit louder than usual , this could affect a lot of children ,us as adults know exactly what we want , just saying , children have the rights to be ignorant to society


    That is exactly the same horseshit my brother dished towards me when his kids were younger. Both him and you can take your attitudes about that and shove it up your respective asses. Yeah, I'm still a touch upset about it. And by the way, he currently denies ever having treated me so crappily, unbelieving now in his current realizations that he ever did such a stupid fucking thing to his little brother. I should have been used to it by then, huh?

    We were on a family vacation in Mexico on a side trip to some ruins when during conversation I'd noticed that his kids didn't know I was gay when one mentioned me marrying a woman. So I later said to my sister-in-law, "they don't know I'm gay?" I was fucking stunned. She said "that's right, and don't you tell them." I was fucking livid. Then I pulled my brother aside to tell him what his wife said and he stood by her, against me. So I told my mother and my mother was pissed at them too for disrespecting life.

    We've lots of gay people in our family. All my little cousins knew I was gay from their infancy and they were no less innocent than my niece and nephews, two of whom were never exactly angels, by the way. Innocence has nothing to do with sexuality. Kids are sexual in their own way within and among their own childhoods. Humans are sexual beings. Babies get hard ons, children explore themselves. What a recent surprise to psychology!

    You've confused innocence with ignorance. Innocence isn't about sexuality, it is about trust, that children should be able to trust the integrity of their world. You yourself inflict upon them the demise of innocence the moment you betray truth.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2014 2:00 PM GMT
    Dazza73 saidDisagree , children sould hold their innocence for as long as they possibly can , having say this parents talk and sometimes a bit louder than usual , this could affect a lot of children ,us as adults know exactly what we want , just saying , children have the rights to be ignorant to society

    Your statement seems to imply one or both of the common misconceptions about gay men, and about gay Boy Scout leaders in particular:

    - all gay men have a sexual interest in young boys
    - gay Scout leaders will want to tell their young charges that they are gay, and discuss sexual matters with the boys

    I would dispute both those contentions. In which case, exactly how are children in danger of losing their innocence by having contact with adult gay men? How are gay Scout leaders different from straight leaders? Is there a Scouting merit badge for Gay Appreciation these gay leaders will require their boys to earn?

    Therefore I do not understand the mechanism for this loss of childhood innocence. Is it the same as when kids see straight men & women kissing passionately, in movies, on TV, and in real life? When kids see straight couples sleeping together in bed, often not married, isn't that a loss of innocence, too? Please explain this disparity.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2014 3:41 PM GMT
    Dazza73 saidDisagree , children sould hold their innocence for as long as they possibly can...


    When my older brother told me there was no Santa Claus, I didn't want to believe him. icon_evil.gif And then the next year when I was 16...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2014 3:54 PM GMT
    Dazza73 saidDisagree , children sould hold their innocence for as long as they possibly can , having say this parents talk and sometimes a bit louder than usual , this could affect a lot of children ,us as adults know exactly what we want , just saying , children have the rights to be ignorant to society



    Sadly, children holding their innocence for as long as they possibly can is no longer advisable in modern society as that may be quite dangerous to their emotional, psychological, and physical well being. It's why schools teach good touch bad touch to pre-K and kindergarten students and many parents do before their children start formal education.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2014 3:58 PM GMT
    I still don't understand why some of you guys are not challenging the implied premise that having a gay Boy Scout leader equates to a loss of innocence. WHY is that a loss of innocence? What is the mechanism?

    That children lose their innocence at different ages, for different reasons, is not the issue. On what basis can it be asserted that gay Boy Scout leaders are a part of that loss?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2014 4:21 PM GMT
    metta8 saidHolder: Boy Scouts’ ban on gay adults ‘perpetuates worst kind of stereotypes’

    "If these men and women are fit for military service, then surely they are fit to mentor, to teach, and to serve as role models for the leaders of future generations."


    http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/06/holder-boy-scouts-ban-on-gay-adults-perpetuates-worst-kind-of-stereotypes/


    Since Holder was neither a Boy Scout nor in the military, I fail to see how he's equipped to address this issue. Even bootstrapping his position as AG doesn't justify his butting into the workings of a private organization, unless it's seen for what it is: more political pandering.

    Focus on prosecuting federal crimes, securing the border, and reining in voter fraud, Holder; that's what you were selected to do. And, you might brush up on the "dispensing power" and actually do something to restrain its resurgence while you're at it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2014 4:31 PM GMT
    For the life of me I can't understand why a gay man would want to be around kids for any length of time anyway, but that's just me.

    Considering the devastating implications to your entire life of even the whisper of impropriety with a minor, I wouldn't accept the risk - straight or gay. All it takes is one allegation - substantiated or not. Even if your name is cleared all people will remember is the salacious gossip.

    Also, it doesn't help our cause when you see gay men dressed as scouts or scoutmasters at Halloween or other costume events. It further perpetuates the idea of gay man as youth predator. It even gives me the creeps.

    Sometimes we gays help perpetuate the very stereotypes used against us.
  • Kazachok

    Posts: 415

    Jun 11, 2014 4:32 PM GMT
    Dazza73 saidDisagree , children sould hold their innocence for as long as they possibly can , having say this parents talk and sometimes a bit louder than usual , this could affect a lot of children ,us as adults know exactly what we want , just saying , children have the rights to be ignorant to society

    That's cute. When I was little I knew that my parents were married, that their friends had husbands and wives, but the thought of them having sex never entered into my mind, because I had no idea what sex was. It would be the same for gays and lesbians. The dude has a husband, and that's that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2014 4:44 PM GMT
    MGINSD said
    Focus on prosecuting federal crimes, securing the border, and reining in voter fraud, Holder; that's what you were selected to do. And, you might brush up on the "dispensing power" and actually do something to restrain its resurgence while you're at it.

    First, WHAT voter fraud? That's a Right Wing myth, for which almost no evidence exists. Invented to justify erecting barriers to voting by minority citizens, a return to the days of the Jim Crow laws. Rather, Republican suppression of legitimate voters is the greater issue, and crime.

    Second, isn't enforcing civil rights laws also part of the role of the Justice Department, and the Attorney General? Interesting how you left that item out, a very significant part of the Attorney General's role to uphold ALL US laws.

    Or is it just the laws that Republicans & you support? As they try to repeal (as the Texas Republican Party just endorsed in their Party platform) things like the Voter Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, reinstatement of DADT and DOMA, and anything that impairs their concept of heterosexual White Christian Supremacy?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2014 5:11 PM GMT
    Many Scouts may be too young to understand the intricacies of sexuality among their consensual grownups. But they're never too young to understand love between them.

    Professed concerns about "innocence" arguably shine a light on why the most strident anti-gay professional loudspeakers refuse to ever utter the "g" word. If they must, they'll use finger quotes before saying it.

    Being labeled "anti-gay" sounds too much like being against rainbows 'n sunshine. Instead, taking a stand against the existence, or display, of someone's "sexuality" gets them more attention, especially when they can throw up children, and their families, as unwitting human shields. "Won't Anyone Think of The Children?", says the crew that would much rather be known as pro-"Family" for as long as they get to pretend homosexuality is an opposing word to Family.

    Heterosexuality never gets presented in terms of STD risks and varieties of non-coital sexual activity to kids, if it's ever discussed at all beyond Adams and Eves, Mommies and Daddies, or two happy people holding hands in separate bathtubs.

    But, when they want kids to finally know about homosexuality, the anti-gay crowd insists on defining the terms. They want to ensure "innocent" kids will see more people ravaged by AIDS, or in prison for diddling kids, or in jail for diddling one another, and equate all of that with "being gay," well before the kids encounter their first garden-variety LGBT person or scoutmaster or couple.

    The Martin Ssempas of the world, have NO problem presenting gay people as The Eat Da Poo Poo Tribe to captive children. "Innocence," be damned.

    Phobia, Inc., insists on "homosexual" as a more "clinical" descriptor, if you will, for pretty much everything (For the auto-replace lulz, Google "Rudy Homosexual" and "Tyson Homosexual").

    Among other aims, this insistence allows for those who would go on and on about Little Johnny being too "innocent" to understand any-o-sexuality to harbor complaints.

    However, it remains possible for kids to recognize and understand couples united in love, and often matrimony, without their parents having to break down The Birds and The Bees before either party's ready.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Jun 11, 2014 6:27 PM GMT
    Dazza73 saidDisagree , children sould hold their innocence for as long as they possibly can , having say this parents talk and sometimes a bit louder than usual , this could affect a lot of children ,us as adults know exactly what we want , just saying , children have the rights to be ignorant to society



    Bullshit. Children have a right to the truth; lying to them is a gross disservice. Encouraging ignorance is despicable.

    When I came out to parents I was often thanked for doing so. Parents either felt it was none of their business, or were glad that I was setting a good example not only of truth-telling, but showing kids that LGBT folks are as worth of respect as anyone.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Jun 11, 2014 6:59 PM GMT
    Art_Deco saidI still don't understand why some of you guys are not challenging the implied premise that having a gay Boy Scout leader equates to a loss of innocence. WHY is that a loss of innocence? What is the mechanism?

    That children lose their innocence at different ages, for different reasons, is not the issue. On what basis can it be asserted that gay Boy Scout leaders are a part of that loss?


    Exactly right; I fully agree.

    However, there is one part of Holder's statement with which I would disagree. Holder asserted that being qualified for military service necessarily means that one is also qualified to be a boy scout leader. In actual fact, a man could be an excellent soldier or officer in the military and also be incapable of being a good boy scout leader.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2014 7:01 PM GMT
    dayumm saidMany Scouts may be too young to understand the intricacies of sexuality among their consensual grownups. But they're never too young to understand love between them....(more good stuff)...


    In your inimitable fashion, that's real good synthesizing of various notions into a comprehensive thought which basically, for those uneasy to follow your thinking, comes down to pointing at how the hetero world presents themselves as transcending sex while offering us up as being mired in it. They are so fucking full of hypocritical shit.

    And the shit they are full of is their idea that sex is only for propagation, otherwise, they say, it's a dirty affront to innocence, when it's actually something babies are born with. Who are they propagating?

    The only thing I'd seek to tweak in what you said is that I don't find any reason to bow before horseshit by denying that sex is sex. It isn't just a matter of love though certainly that's a big message. Yet it is also and foremost even if not so expressed, a matter of sex. Of men having sex with men. Time for the world to get over it.

    Kids not already scared into denial know what sex is. But that doesn't mean they think of it on adult terms. Everyone is born to a great adventure, to explore themselves. I presume the scout leader won't be bringing toys to the campfire? We don't have to deny our sexuality. We don't have to hide behind love to maintain intact the innocence of truth. Truth holds out for the world to see.

    How best to protect innocence then: Arm them with truth unharming.

    Whoever blushes is already guilty; true innocence is ashamed of nothing.”~~Jean-Jacques Rousseau
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Jun 11, 2014 7:03 PM GMT
    UndercoverMan saidFor the life of me I can't understand why a gay man would want to be around kids for any length of time anyway, but that's just me.

    Considering the devastating implications to your entire life of even the whisper of impropriety with a minor, I wouldn't accept the risk - straight or gay. All it takes is one allegation - substantiated or not. Even if your name is cleared all people will remember is the salacious gossip.

    Also, it doesn't help our cause when you see gay men dressed as scouts or scoutmasters at Halloween or other costume events. It further perpetuates the idea of gay man as youth predator. It even gives me the creeps.

    Sometimes we gays help perpetuate the very stereotypes used against us.


    I would also see it as a risk which I personally would be unwilling to accept. However, some gay men have accepted similar risks and have experienced no problems. It's a decision that everyone must make for himself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2014 8:18 PM GMT
    FRE0 said
    UndercoverMan saidFor the life of me I can't understand why a gay man would want to be around kids for any length of time anyway, but that's just me.

    Considering the devastating implications to your entire life of even the whisper of impropriety with a minor, I wouldn't accept the risk - straight or gay. All it takes is one allegation - substantiated or not. Even if your name is cleared all people will remember is the salacious gossip.

    Also, it doesn't help our cause when you see gay men dressed as scouts or scoutmasters at Halloween or other costume events. It further perpetuates the idea of gay man as youth predator. It even gives me the creeps.

    Sometimes we gays help perpetuate the very stereotypes used against us.


    I would also see it as a risk which I personally would be unwilling to accept. However, some gay men have accepted similar risks and have experienced no problems. It's a decision that everyone must make for himself.


    But as an organization shouldn't it have the right to decide who can belong to the organization? They don't allow girls. Do they? You can say girls have the Girl Scouts but a girl could argue that achieving the status of Eagle Scout carries great weight and she should be allowed the opportunity to achieve said status. I don't believe the girl scouts have anything comparable. Joe Schmo on the street probably could name it even if the Girl Scouts do.

    If individuals are allowed to make decisions for themselves based on the risk (perceived or otherwise) shouldn't organizations be allowed the same? I may not like their decision but I also have the freedom to organize my own group.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2014 9:42 PM GMT
    UndercoverMan said
    FRE0 said
    UndercoverMan saidFor the life of me I can't understand why a gay man would want to be around kids for any length of time anyway, but that's just me.

    Considering the devastating implications to your entire life of even the whisper of impropriety with a minor, I wouldn't accept the risk - straight or gay. All it takes is one allegation - substantiated or not. Even if your name is cleared all people will remember is the salacious gossip.

    Also, it doesn't help our cause when you see gay men dressed as scouts or scoutmasters at Halloween or other costume events. It further perpetuates the idea of gay man as youth predator. It even gives me the creeps.

    Sometimes we gays help perpetuate the very stereotypes used against us.


    I would also see it as a risk which I personally would be unwilling to accept. However, some gay men have accepted similar risks and have experienced no problems. It's a decision that everyone must make for himself.


    But as an organization shouldn't it have the right to decide who can belong to the organization? They don't allow girls. Do they? You can say girls have the Girl Scouts but a girl could argue that achieving the status of Eagle Scout carries great weight and she should be allowed the opportunity to achieve said status. I don't believe the girl scouts have anything comparable. Joe Schmo on the street probably could name it even if the Girl Scouts do.

    If individuals are allowed to make decisions for themselves based on the risk (perceived or otherwise) shouldn't organizations be allowed the same? I may not like their decision but I also have the freedom to organize my own group.


    Q: Until 1990, when they were being sued, guess what the Boys and Girls Club USED to be called?

    http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1530&context=ggulrev

    Now, Title IX actually excepts the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, explicitly, along with the YMCA and YWCA, as "voluntary service organizations," a status whose criteria, I presume, the Boys Club could not establish:

    http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/crc/titleix.htm

    DOL Page on Title IX
    (6) Social fraternities or sororities; voluntary youth service organizations

    this section shall not apply to membership practices --

    (A) of a social fraternity or social sorority which is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of Title 26, the active membership of which consists primarily of students in attendance at an institution of higher education, or

    (B) of the Young Men's Christian Association, Young Women's Christian Association; Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Camp Fire Girls, and voluntary youth service organizations which are so exempt, the membership of which has traditionally been limited to persons of one sex and principally to persons of less than nineteen years of age


    The Boy Scouts can, and does, have membership policies that define how boys can join their group. "Desire to engage in intercourse exclusively with the opposite gender by the time the member reaches sexual maturity," would be a slippery criterion for obvious reasons. And way back when, they didn't have the presence of mind to call themselves the Straight Boy Scouts to make exclusionary appeals on the basis of tradition.

    http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/BoyScouts/AdvancementandAwards/joining.aspx

    Boy Scouts of AmericaMeet the age requirements.

    Be a boy who is 11 years old, or one who has completed the fifth grade or earned the Arrow of Light Award and is at least 10 years old, but is not yet 18 years old.

    Find a Scout troop near your home.

    Complete a Boy Scout application and health history signed by your parent or guardian.

    Repeat the Pledge of Allegiance.

    Demonstrate the Scout sign, salute, and handshake.

    Demonstrate tying the square knot (a joining knot).

    Understand and agree to live by the Scout Oath, Scout Law, motto, and slogan, and the Outdoor Code.

    Describe the Scout badge.

    Complete the pamphlet exercises.

    With your parent or guardian, complete the exercises in the pamphlet How to Protect Your Children From Child Abuse: A Parent’s Guide.

    Participate in a Scoutmaster conference.

    Turn in your Boy Scout application and health history form signed by your parent or guardian, then participate in a Scoutmaster conference.


    If you're a young man that can do all those things, and pay whatever dues they require, your orientation shouldn't matter terribly much.

    Also, the first link notes the BSA established a "Learning for Life" program in 1991 that technically isn't scouting, but was created to allow for "girls as well as gay boys" to join, perhaps as a hedge against future lawsuits about participation.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Jun 11, 2014 10:43 PM GMT
    UndercoverMan said
    FRE0 said
    UndercoverMan saidFor the life of me I can't understand why a gay man would want to be around kids for any length of time anyway, but that's just me.

    Considering the devastating implications to your entire life of even the whisper of impropriety with a minor, I wouldn't accept the risk - straight or gay. All it takes is one allegation - substantiated or not. Even if your name is cleared all people will remember is the salacious gossip.

    Also, it doesn't help our cause when you see gay men dressed as scouts or scoutmasters at Halloween or other costume events. It further perpetuates the idea of gay man as youth predator. It even gives me the creeps.

    Sometimes we gays help perpetuate the very stereotypes used against us.


    I would also see it as a risk which I personally would be unwilling to accept. However, some gay men have accepted similar risks and have experienced no problems. It's a decision that everyone must make for himself.


    But as an organization shouldn't it have the right to decide who can belong to the organization? They don't allow girls. Do they? You can say girls have the Girl Scouts but a girl could argue that achieving the status of Eagle Scout carries great weight and she should be allowed the opportunity to achieve said status. I don't believe the girl scouts have anything comparable. Joe Schmo on the street probably could name it even if the Girl Scouts do.

    If individuals are allowed to make decisions for themselves based on the risk (perceived or otherwise) shouldn't organizations be allowed the same? I may not like their decision but I also have the freedom to organize my own group.


    I agree, but only to a limited extent.

    If membership to a private organization is restricted, then that organization should not expect to receive financial aid from the government. It must also understand that it may have to forfeit aid from other organizations. For example, some Boy Scout troops meet in churches ands some churches may decide not to permit a Boy Scout troop to meet there if the Boy Scouts discriminate in any way that the church finds unacceptable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2014 11:07 PM GMT
    FRE0 said
    However, there is one part of Holder's statement with which I would disagree. Holder asserted that being qualified for military service necessarily means that one is also qualified to be a boy scout leader. In actual fact, a man could be an excellent soldier or officer in the military and also be incapable of being a good boy scout leader.

    As a career US Army Officer I completely agree. How I led adults in a military combat organization is completely different from how you mentor boys in what is basically a fraternal youth organization, with no mission to fight an enemy. I fail to see any useful connection, other than both wear uniforms and do outdoor tenting.

    For that reason I am rather dubious of former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates being selected as the new head of the Boy Scouts of America. Perhaps he has the correct skill set, I don't know. But on face value I don't see how his résumé makes him the best choice for the job. Are the Scouts planning to militarize along the lines of the Hitler Youth, or the Soviet era Young Pioneers?
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Jun 12, 2014 2:10 AM GMT
    It's not unusual for someone to be selected for a position unrelated to his experience. For example, Reagan's experience as an actor wasn't related to the skills needed to be governor or president. It's unclear how General Eisenhower's experience was related to being president. Arnold Schwarzenegger's experience as a steroid-using muscle builder and actor was completely unrelated to what was required to be governor. Even so, it makes more sense to find someone with related experience to fill positions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2014 2:37 AM GMT
    FRE0 saidIt's not unusual for someone to be selected for a position unrelated to his experience. For example, Reagan's experience as an actor wasn't related to the skills needed to be governor or president. It's unclear how General Eisenhower's experience was related to being president. Arnold Schwarzenegger's experience as a steroid-using muscle builder and actor was completely unrelated to what was required to be governor. Even so, it makes more sense to find someone with related experience to fill positions.

    The examples you cite seem to prove my own reservations regarding them, even if they demonstrate the regrettable frequency of such selections.

    Although I might be favorable to Eisenhower. He really wasn't a military field commander, like a Patton or a Bradley, but instead a logistician and organizer. And a diplomat in dealing with our military allies during WWII, principally the British. Those were skills that later translated well into the Executive Branch. And he carried personal international prestige in the post-war period, something vital during the growing Cold War, as nations began to take sides.

    Plus he introduced from the military the concept of the White House Chief of Staff, a position that didn't exist before his Presidency. Which continues to this day, suggesting it was an effective innovation. Eisenhower understood organizational structure, and delegation, the delegating part perhaps a bit too freely at times in political Washington, which can betray you.

    Still, he was a Republican in whom I could find merit. A more ethical and moderate Republican than anything we have on the scene today. In his day the nutjobs were Senator Joe McCarthy and the John Birchers. It seems those types are the ones who have taken control of the Republican Party today. Who would denounce Eisenhower as a RINO Democrat if he were alive.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2014 11:51 AM GMT
    UndercoverMan said
    FRE0 said
    UndercoverMan saidFor the life of me I can't understand why a gay man would want to be around kids for any length of time anyway, but that's just me.

    Considering the devastating implications to your entire life of even the whisper of impropriety with a minor, I wouldn't accept the risk - straight or gay. All it takes is one allegation - substantiated or not. Even if your name is cleared all people will remember is the salacious gossip.

    Also, it doesn't help our cause when you see gay men dressed as scouts or scoutmasters at Halloween or other costume events. It further perpetuates the idea of gay man as youth predator. It even gives me the creeps.

    Sometimes we gays help perpetuate the very stereotypes used against us.


    I would also see it as a risk which I personally would be unwilling to accept. However, some gay men have accepted similar risks and have experienced no problems. It's a decision that everyone must make for himself.


    But as an organization shouldn't it have the right to decide who can belong to the organization? They don't allow girls. Do they? You can say girls have the Girl Scouts but a girl could argue that achieving the status of Eagle Scout carries great weight and she should be allowed the opportunity to achieve said status. I don't believe the girl scouts have anything comparable. Joe Schmo on the street probably could name it even if the Girl Scouts do.

    If individuals are allowed to make decisions for themselves based on the risk (perceived or otherwise) shouldn't organizations be allowed the same? I may not like their decision but I also have the freedom to organize my own group.


    TOTALLY AGREE! What happened to a private business being allowed to cater to their own clientele? There are so many double standards for men nowadays. For instance, I would love to belong to an all male gym. Women are allowed to have the CURVES, Ladies Only and other women only franchises... why not a male only gym? Furthermore, our "lifestyle" is more adult oriented. I still remember Pride from the '90's when It was adults only. Not lesbian mothers and fag hags putting their kids in rainbow garb. We need to go back to the 80's with kids. There are certain places where kids just don't belong, bars, nice restaurants, condo communities, etc. I love kids, but don't want to be around 'em to much & never alone due to the implied link between homosexuality and pedophilia. Remember a large chunk of conservatives view us as perverts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2014 1:33 PM GMT
    Kentuckianaboy said
    TOTALLY AGREE! What happened to a private business being allowed to cater to their own clientele? There are so many double standards for men nowadays. For instance, I would love to belong to an all male gym. Women are allowed to have the CURVES, Ladies Only and other women only franchises... why not a male only gym? Furthermore, our "lifestyle" is more adult oriented. I still remember Pride from the '90's when It was adults only. Not lesbian mothers and fag hags putting their kids in rainbow garb. We need to go back to the 80's with kids. There are certain places where kids just don't belong, bars, nice restaurants, condo communities, etc. I love kids, but don't want to be around 'em to much & never alone due to the implied link between homosexuality and pedophilia. Remember a large chunk of conservatives view us as perverts.

    I did once belong to male-only gyms: the YMCA. But they went co-ed (oddly keeping the "M" for Men's in their name) because women claimed the facilities available to them were inferior and less available. And also because the Ys weren't doing too well at the time and needed the money from increased membership, so the Y itself embraced the idea. Biggest drawback for me was the need to start wearing a swimsuit. I knew a lot of guys who resented that consequence, losing the simplicity of not needing to worry about dealing with one, either in the pool or afterwards.

    At the risk of generalizing, I think only about half of Conservatives really believe gays are naturally child molesters. The other half knows it's not true, but accept the lie as a political expedient that aids their goal to deny us our civil rights and preserve our status as second-class outcasts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2014 4:00 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    MGINSD said
    Focus on prosecuting federal crimes, securing the border, and reining in voter fraud, Holder; that's what you were selected to do. And, you might brush up on the "dispensing power" and actually do something to restrain its resurgence while you're at it.

    First, WHAT voter fraud? That's a Right Wing myth, for which almost no evidence exists. Invented to justify erecting barriers to voting by minority citizens, a return to the days of the Jim Crow laws. Rather, Republican suppression of legitimate voters is the greater issue, and crime.

    Second, isn't enforcing civil rights laws also part of the role of the Justice Department, and the Attorney General? Interesting how you left that item out, a very significant part of the Attorney General's role to uphold ALL US laws.

    Or is it just the laws that Republicans & you support? As they try to repeal (as the Texas Republican Party just endorsed in their Party platform) things like the Voter Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, reinstatement of DADT and DOMA, and anything that impairs their concept of heterosexual White Christian Supremacy?


    Ah, the parade of cliches rounds another corner. There's plenty of evidence of voter fraud, though your ever-climbing quantum will never be satisfied with it. The point is that voter ID laws - which, as SCOTUS has recognized, can hardly be described as suppressive in light of all the other ID requirements in daily life - are preventive measures which, as a matter of law, do not require evidence of past abuses, though they are there. (Eg. Chicago's late-discovered votes in the 1960 election that put Kennedy over the top, the ballot boxes found floating in SF Bay after an election in the late 1990s, the intimidation tactics of the Black Panthers, ...)

    And speaking of the AG's oath-mandated obligation to enforce all laws, why isn't he enforcing the laws against illegal immigration, to name just one example from your universe? You'll always find something to cavil about, and failing that, have repeatedly demonstrated that you'll always have a ready arsenal of cliches from which to sally forth.