Tuesday, March 11, 2014

It seems that boys, unlike girls, should be sent on camping trips with adults who are sexually attracted to them

From Hot Air:
Walt Disney World tells Boy Scouts to allow openly gay leaders or lose funding
A good question:
[T]his leads to a question: Will Disney also take money from Girl Scouts USA, which does not allow male scout leaders? Discrimination is discrimination, after all, and those men who want to lead girls on scouting trips should be given the same opportunity as women.
Never forget that the father of the gay rights movement was a homosexual pedophile. 

31 comments:

  1. Harry Hay was a homosexual pedophile, as you mentioned, and a communist. Harvey Milk was a homosexual pedophile. Oh, how about David Norris? He was the leading candidate for Ireland's presidency, set to be the first openly homosexual head of state in the EU. It turned out that he had kind words for pedophiles and his longtime boyfriend was one too. Larry Brinkin, gay rights icon, was arrested on kiddie porn charges. GLAD, the organization that brought suit against Massachusetts to change the definition of marriage, began life as a pedophile defense fund.

    See a pattern here?

    Liberals don't hate pedophile priests because they're pedophiles. They hate them because they're priests.

    Joey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Similarly, conservatives rail against pedophile homosexuals all the time, but give priests a pass. Conservatives don’t hate gay pedophiles because their pedophiles, they hate them because they’re gay.
      The difference is the hypocrisy of the priests who rely on a reputation of moral authority and virtue to prey on children.

      -KW

      Delete
    2. Relying on moral authority is not a crime of which you can be accused, KW.

      Delete
    3. True, unlike theists, I don’t believe anything just because some authority tells me to. I know from observing the likes of you and from simple common sense that doing so makes one that much easier to manipulate.

      -KW

      Delete
    4. Right, KW. People without moral compass are particularly immune to manipulation.

      Delete
    5. Uncritical acceptance of authority is not a prerequisite for good morals. Not relying on moral authority is not the same as having no moral compass. It’s dishonest of you to put those words in my mouth. I’m a more honest, just, and forgiving person than you will likely ever be.

      How’s your Lent sin reduction effort going? Have you cut back?

      -KW

      Delete
    6. KW, how is our acceptance of the authority of the Catholic Church 'uncritical'? I put it through the wringer before I accepted it. I have a very 'critical' acceptance of her authority.

      Delete
    7. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyMarch 11, 2014 at 12:04 PM

      Popeye: "How’s your Lent sin reduction effort going?"

      You believe in sin?

      Delete
    8. I was referring to Egnor saying “I'll also try to be less sinful than I usually am.” for Lent. Your question is rather stupid. I believe in sin as defined in #2, but in this instance of talking to Egnor, his interpreting my question to mean definition #1 is just fine. You don’t do subtlety do you?

      1. Transgression of theological principles: an act, thought, or way of behaving that goes against the law or teachings of a religion, especially when the person who commits it is aware of this


      2. Shameful offense: something that offends a moral or ethical principle


      -KW

      Delete
    9. You couldn't be more wrong, KW. I don't give a pass to pedophile priests or pedophiles of any kind. Put them all in jail.

      It's not like we're the Hollywood set, so concerned with the injustice of a certain Roman Polanski being extradited to serve time for a crime he already pleaded guilty to.

      Pedophiles occupy the loftiest positions in the so-called gay rights pantheon. We've got a friggin' postage stamp with homosexual pedophile Harvey Milk's face on it! He's got a holiday in California, they make (laudatory) movies about him, and the homosexuals even want to name a ship after the little kiddy-diddler.

      Name a pedophile priests who gets similar treatment.

      Joey

      Delete
    10. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyMarch 11, 2014 at 6:19 PM

      Popeye: "You don’t do subtlety do you?"

      Popeye, you are about as nuanced as a wet fart at a funeral.

      Delete
  2. If buttraping children weren't their goal, they'd be content not to be included in the BSA. They'd understand why, just the same way I can understand why the girl scouts don't want me taking their daughters camping.

    But buttraping kids is their goal.

    The Torch

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't want a heterosexual man taking my daughter camping. I wouldn't want a homosexual man staking my son camping. Why is this so hard to understand?

      TRISH

      Delete
    2. It's not hard to understand, TRISH.

      If there's one thing I've learned from the misnamed "gay" "rights" movement, it's that sexual behavior is kind of like race. Unless you're into buttraping kids, and then it's not like race.

      If they were to be consistent in their stupid analogy, they would say that buttraping kids is kind of like race too, only this particular race is one that really deserves to be despised. It would still be a stupid analogy, but at least they would be consistent.

      The Torch

      Delete
    3. TRISH:

      I wouldn't want a heterosexual man taking my daughter camping. I wouldn't want a homosexual man staking my son camping. Why is this so hard to understand?

      I don't understand why you wouldn't let your husband take your daughter camping, assuming he is heterosexual of course.

      Delete
  3. Maybe Christians should advise Disney to allow street evangelists in all their theme parks, or lose some gate revenue. Or show The Passion of Christ movie on the cable channel or lose subscribers.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I clicked on the link and said that Disney is pulling their funding because the BSA violates their nondiscrimination policy. The interesting thing is that "sex" is also listed as a protected category in their policy, so the GSA is also in violation of that. The policy is being selectively enforced. Disney is NOT against discrimination.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyMarch 11, 2014 at 7:36 AM

    When asked by journalist William Crawley whether he thought pedophilia was "wrong", eminent academic philosopher and Progressive icon responded "I don’t have intrinsic moral taboos." Singer is a preference utilitarian; i.e., "what is good and right depends solely on individual preferences, there can be nothing that is in itself good or bad". (Wiki: preference utilitarianism). Another way of saying it, perhaps more generally, is: "if it feels good, do it". That last phrase is usually attributed to the floridly insane Aleister Crowley, icon of the New Age movement, early 20th Century occultist and practitioner of "sex magick".

    And, as expected, another Progressive academic, Richard Dawkins, finds he has a bit of a soft spot in his heart for the boy-dandlers who engage in, as he calls it, a "mild touching-up" ("touching-up", what a delightful and innocent-sounding euphemism for kiddie sex). Why, it's just the Molecular Prime Directive driving the gigantic, lumbering meat robot. Nothing to get too exercised about.

    But I think Disney has a legal problem. What about female Girl Scout leaders who are "women", but were born as "men trapped in a woman's body"? Surely they can't discriminate against them!





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Senile old fart,

      Yet another YouTube video, eh?

      Anyway. Almost all adults aren't sexually attracted to children. Having openly homosexual scout leaders shouldn't be a problem, because they can be monitored. And parents can be aware and withdraw their children if they're concerned because they're (or should be) aware.

      Parents have the right and responsibility not to put their children in danger.

      What's more dangerous - an openly homosexual person or someone who has a sexual preference for children (whether homo- or heterosexual), has it hidden and is busy 'grooming' children to whom he has been given access?

      Delete
  6. This blog should change its title to “Strait guys who hate gays but just can’t stop thinking about them”.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They do protest a lot don't they? Maybe they should go on a camping trip together - see who gets an erection first in the communal shower. Or maybe a trip to a local seminary for some spiritual bonding with the 'brothers'.

      Delete
    2. It would be a lot easier to ignore them if they weren't constantly in our faces and forcing us to make wedding cakes for them.

      And Troy, as I've mentioned before, you seem to be a tad bit obsessed with pedophiles in Roman collars. I wonder why you can't stop thinking about them. It's not like we're trying to teach your children that it's natural and their dad is a bigot.

      Joey

      Joey

      Delete
  7. Pretty stupid, KW and Troy, but not surprising. It was Disney that protested in this instance and it is homosexuals in general who are trying to force acceptance of their putrid and perverted lifestyle on us. To resist that intrusion of perversion is not to "protest a lot," anymore than resisting a break-in could be considered a "protest," but at least we know where your mind resides, Troy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyMarch 11, 2014 at 9:52 AM

      BR: "at least we know where your mind resides, Troy. "

      I hate to be disputatious :-) Big Rich, but I'm afraid Troi does not have a "mind" in the usual connotation of the word. Like several other commenters on this blog, Troi is a self-proclaimed meat machine, nothing more than a tricked-out version of a Portuguese Man 'o War.

      "Thinking meat" is surely an oxymoron. Meat can be trained, though, albeit purely in a stimulus-response mode.

      Delete
    2. I am having a lot of fun training my little 6 months old son, a most charming and entertaining little meat machine. His stimulus-response patterns get more sophisticated every day. We talk to him in Dutch and Ukrainian, but so far we haven't been able to classify his responses as belonging to either language.

      Delete
    3. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyMarch 11, 2014 at 6:16 PM

      Troi: "We talk to him in Dutch and Ukrainian...

      Be careful, Troi. I know three bilingual couples (English/Spanish) who did exactly the same thing. In all three cases, the child developed a speech impairment that required therapy. I have no idea what was going on, but I discount the notion of coincidence. I suppose it's possible that an infant needs a single language to attach to, and then branch out at an early age to a second language. But, frankly, I don't know jack shit about it. Just a thought.

      Delete
    4. Thanks for your concern, Admiral, but our older kids had no problems picking up on both languages. Neither did any of the kids of several bilingual couples that we know. The multicultural community of scientists has numerous bilingual couples, and it seems to work out fine usually, as far as I know. More than two languages may be a problem though (i.e. when the parents don't speak each others native tongue).

      Delete
    5. Troy are you telling your son the truth about what you believe-- that he's a meaningless, worthless, random accident in a meaningless accidental world? Maybe he'll grow up to become another little Darwinist like Dylan Klebold or are you being completely inconsistent and telling him that he is loved and that you want the best for him? If so, why would a meat machine do that?

      Delete
  8. Considering that the Girls Scouts, as a whole, is *already* run by lesbians, and has as its purpose the training-up of the girls to be man-hating feminists, I'd say it looks like we already have an organization for sending girls on camping trips with adults who are sexually attracted to them.

    ReplyDelete
  9. i'm sure there is no concern of abuse or any sexual interest by gay scout leaders.
    thats not the point.
    the boy scouts is about forming boys into men by learning traits of manhood.
    Its the moral right and duty of these groups to demand only normal men with out the profound problem of sexual deviance BE allowed to be scouts.
    Walt Disney is imposing its moral conclusion in a place thats none of their business. its a act of cartoonish aggression.
    this is a chance for the boy scouts to stand their manly ground and say no to this moral blackmail. they will survive without Disney's moral thumbs up and money.
    Walt would be with the scouts and not with the unworthy inheriters of his accomplishment in entertainment.
    Gays must accept this rejection as a rejection of wrong influence even if not obvious.
    America must take back manhood from gay or feminist attack.
    By moral and intellectual fisticuffs.
    this forum does it but it should become a general campaign against the bad guys .
    They are attacking us. They are interfering with us and not us with them.

    ReplyDelete