The beauty of the internet is that it is a treasure trove of knowledge & information. I googled "boy scout knots" since I wanted to know how to tie a balikbayan box. I viewed some photos showing the knot and as I scrolled down I saw this:
Instead of figuring out how to accomplish tying the box my mind went elsewhere. This picture aided by another picture (to be talked about later in the post) urged me to write this.
Now initially no openly homosexual boys were allowed - the reason being that due to this sexual/romantic/hormonal preference, a homosexual boy may make a sexual advance towards another boy (who most likely won't be bi-curious, homosexual, or even thinking about such things let alone girls, he may be thinking of his PS4 while tying knots), and the main precaution, to my understanding, was to protect any boys from advancements from their scout masters, who might be a homosexual. I understand the initial (now turned down) rule. Whatever happens to the a young boy the men in charge will be blamed and the organization will be held accountable. The parents would probably be compelled to sue the culprit and organization - and the BSA aren't made of dough. Something of this magnitude will no doubt bankrupt the organization. To me this wasn't due to homophobia (in many minds such a precaution is) since I go by -phobias as "fear", like actual fear, as in "GoldRush fears spiders."
I'm am not familiar with the "We Will Not Allow Gay Partners!" Unless both guardians of the boy show up at prospect meeting I don't see how one would know if both are gay let alone are partners. This raises some questions in me. Most boys start scouting when they're about 8 - that's Cub Scouts. If I remember correctly, since I was a Cub Scout when I was a child, Boy Scouts started around 10 or 11 after one graduates from Webelos. One isn't forced to do Boy Scouts; it's a choice (or unless their father is a Scout Master then the pressure is on). The first rung of the ladder in Boy Scouts is a Tender Foot, then one rises through the ladder and becomes an Eagle Scout at 18, given that all requirements are fulfilled - badges and a public service requirement. It's a long process. Entering high school as a Boy Scout, openly, isn't really popular since you're probably seen as one step lower than band members in the coolness factor. One usually sticks to it if they really want to achieve that Eagle rank.
Now here are my further questions: How do Scout Masters and the BSA know there's a scout who's a homosexual? Unless that boy who decides to become a Boy Scout AND knows he is attracted to his own sex, either exclusively or as a preference (considering he's bisexual) AND shares that to the public, the outcry of "We Will Not Allow Gay Scouts", as depicted in the propaganda cartoon is being melodramatic. Sexuality, more or less, at that age is not so obvious that an initial look at a young boy's face turns on someone's gaydar, or bi-dar. How many young boys between the ages of 10-13, if they do know they're not straight, actually broadcast it? How many Boy Scouts would actually admit that they fancy their own sex? How many Boy Scouts who admit that they're attracted to their own sex were stripped of their accomplishments and booted out of the pack? I am aware of no story being brought forth.
Through experience, non of my peers talked about whether or not they were straight (it's largely assumed, naturally), gay, bi-curious, asexual, queer, if they preferred a sock and their own hand, or if they felt they were a girl instead of a boy. We were too focused on learning oaths and burying our heads in our scout books to even consider talking about sexuality. I don't think it even crossed our minds. Sexuality wasn't even brought up as a topic when meetings took place. In fact, the space where meetings took place was the same place where Girl Scout meetings where. I remember one of my peers walking to some of the Girls Scouts waiting to use the room after our meetings and saying "Girl Scouts?!" and puffed his chest out, making his scarf prominently stick out in the air. I mean, they had a rank called "Brownies." Brownies.Why? We had bad-ass ranks liked Tiger and Bear. (I'm being tongue-in-cheek, but those ranks actually exist in the world of American scouting.)
Now, of course, due to pressure from the outside world (as my reading from scout forums suggests, more 'progressive' parents and scout masters saw certain rules held by BSA as stifling, ironic enough - can anyone say "heretics"?) this ban - mainly due to protection of the organization and for the boys - has been lifted. The media, as demonstrated by the propaganda cartoon and the Atlantic Monthly (AM), basically turned this ban into a national story. What's interesting about the letters of the Eagle Scouts, those that were large enough to read, is that most followed the same lines of "This is an embarrassment to be part of such an association. This is discrimination. BSA fails to live up to its ideals. I am renouncing my Eagle Scout medal." And whose idea was to send in the highest honor? I'd suspect a letter was circled around to use as a template which encouraged to forfeit such an honor. I want to ask those that returned their medals if they knew any boy who was stripped of their accomplishments and booted out of the troop. I doubt they'd could conjure a single memory of such a thing happening.
This reminds me of Catholics who said they left the church for similar reasons without fully understanding any of the philosophy or doctrine behind teachings they had issues with, for instance the teaching that says homosexuality as a sin or the church not allowing & recognizing same-sex "marriage." Their thought process probably went something like this "What? Gays can't get married? Well that's just discrimination! That's an abomination! This is the 21st century! That's such an archaic and backwards teaching! I am embarrassed to be part such an institution!"
I'd wager that the men who returned there medal due to this now defunct ruling thought little of why such a band was there in the first place. I also have a feeling they were much brighter when they were younger before modernity crept into their everyday thinking. Not to mention the arrogance of telling an organization that they aren't living up to the written motto simply because it banned open homosexuals from being Scouts. In my eyes, such men showed that they do not do not deserve their Eagle rank. So, in some bizarre ironic twist, they proved they were not worthy of such an honor.
It's not like scouting was immensely popular in the States before this national story, and that when you saw a Scout you'd salute him. Sadly, it has become an activity often forgotten about once boys graduated from elementary school. Once someone found out that homosexuals were not allowed to be Scout Masters scouting became the activity for those who jumped onto the "homosexuals are victims of an unjust society and backward norms" wagon. Were there boys in my scouting days that were homosexuals? I have no clue. Were there Scout Masters that were homosexuals? I don't know. They were all married and had kids; the kids turned out to be my peers
BSA was more popular back in the day, more relevant, because it was seen as an organization and as an activity that appealed to the handy man, the outdoors man, and that it instilled discipline and virtue. I don't think most of America knew or thought of scouting that way before this whole fiasco. Now, those that didn't give two licks about the activity, and who are around my age, even older, probably thought "Good riddance. Serves them right to be ridiculed since they're such a bigoted organization. I hate homophobia." All of a sudden such people care?All of a sudden homosexuals are victims?
What are my opinions? To use the propaganda cartoon as a guide:
Do I think boys, who are homosexuals, should be allowed as scouts?
Answer: I think boys should be allowed to join regardless of their sexual preference - and I believe no questions are asked before the boy signs up if he likes boys or girls, so such a question is irrelevant. But, how would one know of their sexual preference in the first place? Many assume that a boy likes girls, and naturally so. Many times "Did you know so-and-so was gay?" is met with "Really?" If the boy is a homosexual is he open about? If he was open about it then I'd bet they'd be initiatives to integrate a "sensitivity" course throughout each pack & troop. There should be no such thing.
Do I think same-sex guardians should be allowed?
Answer: Vague question. Allowed to what? I'll direct it: I think the boy in their custody should be allowed to join regardless of who are his guardian(s). Now can one or both (open homosexuals) guardians be allowed to become a Scout Master? No to both. I've covered the reasons why earlier in this post.
Do I think homosexual partners should be allowed?
Answer: Vague question. Allowed to what? I'll direct it: Should homosexual partners be allowed to be Scout Masters? No. I've covered the reasons why earlier in this post. Then again I'm not aware of a story that homosexual partners are even remotely interested in Boy Scouts. In fact, I'd be mightily suspicious.
Does this make me homophobic?
Answer: No, not to me, but to the modernist and their eve expanding definition of what constitutes as "homophobic" I am.
The other picture, a tweet actually:
fuck off
So not only are the party members angry at the priest, but also the Millennial (the young lady is an actress) who felt strong enough about it to share her feelings. And in such eloquent fashion might I add. In my experience this is a common reaction amongst the 'modern and under 35' crowd. I remember reading on a movie site asking readers to list down what they hated. Many listed down "homophobia." I listed down "modern & post-modern thought." Yes. I. Did.
You'd think, given by her obvious irritation, that homosexuals are daily rounded up and sent to facilities that cured them. I'll admit that what the priest said was controversial, totally un-PC -- probably more controversial than most modern thought (ironic how that works out). People will loose their brain and start frothing at the mouth - the reaction is almost a disease (again, highly ironic). It is a highly controversial thing to not only think about but to also say aloud in modern times. Modernists think homosexuality is not a big deal, that it creates nothing of wrongness, if not outright goodness. Granted @Little is an actress, so it's safe to say she knows a good number of open homosexuals - fellow actors, stylists to make up & hair artists. It's a sensitive subject to her. I understand. She might even have a relative that's a homosexual. Then again, so do I.
One would think such a defensive reaction would lead into a reality where homosexuals were constantly bombarded with Fundamentalists saying you're going to hell (highly doubt that's the case) or that their front lawns were vandalized due their sexuality (highly doubt that's a common occurrence). Given the religious climate in England, and given people like Richard Dawkins, I doubt @Little is surrounded by such Fundamentalists since she lives in London, and the last time I was in London I experienced no Fundamentalists or anyone on their soapbox saying "Repent! Repent! For he is coming!"
And another:
An openly gay man joins the NFL, a Southern state issues same-sex marriage licenses and a drag queen wins Eurovision. #mostfabulousdayever
— God (@TheTweetOfGod) May 11, 2014
Because an openly gay man would not be accepted into the league? It made me chuckle that the qualifier Southern had to be present. A "Southern" state. Those backwards, toothless, inbreeding, racist, bigoted, obese, welfare, ignorant & stupid, Bible thumping Southern states!
"Hey guys, a SOUTHERN state finely joined the modern world!"
"Indoor plumbing? High speed internet? Free wi-fi at the bus stop where the bus runs on solar energy?"
"No. The state passed gay marriage!"
#TweetofGodMyAss
No comments :
Post a Comment