Scouting’s suicide
Adif understanding

United States

#874 Feb 8, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, Adif, you have as much as admitted here that you bat both ways. I guess you want everyone else to live in as much denial as you do--in the name of equality.
But the reality is that in this wonderful world we have people who are attracted oppositely, some who are attracted the same, and some, like yourself, who seem to go both ways. And the majority are able to come to peace with who they are.
There is no need to require everyone else to give up something (as I would imagine you see yourself as having to do) in order to participate in marriage.
lol.. I never said I bat both ways, and I certainly never said I wouldn't. I'm not sure why you bring it up, do you think it bothers me or something? Do you really think you are that important that you questioning my sexuality would make one bit of difference to me? Lol... I hope you have a plan B.

Government is only in the business of marriage for the express purpose of directing society as society at large deems fit. Government was never involved in what we call marriage until until some king in Europe attempted to wrestle power away from the church and in the US, government only got involved for the legal disposition of property and offspring.

Now, all of that can be accomplished without marriage. Marriage from a government perspective is pretty much negated in today's age. however, as long as it exists as a product of arcane expression of power to influence the good of the subjects under it, then adding to it is nothing but asking for extra rights.

No where in any law concerning marriage that I can find does it say anything about attraction or love or feelings or anything. You can marry someone entirely for business purposes or you could become legal for religious purposes. It simply does not take any of it into consideration. The argument of attraction or love is a non sequitor in this matter.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#875 Feb 9, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I know you don't know how constitutional interpretation works. But, the "save one life" argument will become germane in applying either an intermediate or stricy scrutiny test to any gun regulation that makes its way to the court for review.
Plus, I was more concerned with the intellectual honesty of you wingnuts. You love to apply one theory to issues you care about and reject the same theory when others use it. Then, incredibly, you scream hypocrisy.
ending abortion will save 1 life

about 1 million a year.

come get you some if you want my guns.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#876 Feb 9, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Your "save one child" argument does not apply to the BSA's membership standards. As a private organization, it enjoys freedom of association, and may ban homosexuals forever, if it so chooses.
Therefore, your dragging Second Amendment rights into this discussion for comparative purposes is pointless.
Quit being so dense. It isn't my argument. It was Seriouslady's argument. I didn't drag the 2d amendment into it, you or one of the other nuts did. The whole point of this part of the discussion was to solely determine whether the "if it save's one child" argument was legitimate in and of itself. That way, we could either stop using it or stop bitching when someone else used it. Carumba.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#877 Feb 9, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>You really have no clue do you? There are absolute limits to things. You can like the color red and buy everything red except for when it isn't offered in red. A theory does not automatically trump absolutes. In this case, the second amendment places absolute limitations into the realm and it doesn't matter if the courts reason away the second amendment because a civil war to protect it _will_ ensue.
In the end, those limits will reign supreme.
You can't have a reasonable discussion if you try to force people to join your fantasy world in order to have it. You have a 2d amendment fantasy world the entire foundation of which is fundamentally flawed.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#878 Feb 9, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>You're the strange one, little girl. And you really suffer for it when you boy Dukie isn't here to try and bail you out. Tip's right on the money...you get caught looking foolish and you'll say anything to try and spin your way out of it.
You must have real issues with relationships...you'd drive just about anyone away with your narcissism.
Now you are just trying too hard. You used to be able to follow a conversation. You can't now because of your unhealthy obsession with me. You should probably talk to your priest about it.

As an aside, I don't take social advice from a 49 year old man who starts every conversation with, "Did I mention I have a bachelor's degree?"
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#879 Feb 9, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
ending abortion will save 1 life
about 1 million a year.
come get you some if you want my guns.
Did you just offer me an abortion?

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#880 Feb 9, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are just trying too hard. You used to be able to follow a conversation. You can't now because of your unhealthy obsession with me. You should probably talk to your priest about it.
As an aside, I don't take social advice from a 49 year old man who starts every conversation with, "Did I mention I have a bachelor's degree?"
Did I mention you're a liar? And that you claim a JD at every turn? You and the racist Black Rhino should get together and preen over your degrees. I bring mine up only when challenged on it.

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#881 Feb 9, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you just offer me an abortion?
You are a complete moron.
Adif understanding

United States

#882 Feb 9, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't have a reasonable discussion if you try to force people to join your fantasy world in order to have it. You have a 2d amendment fantasy world the entire foundation of which is fundamentally flawed.
It seems that you might be the one with a fantasy going here. People with guns and a large section of people without them agree with me- or should I say we all agree with the second amendment.

Now keep crying that it is different, I know a lot of them are willing to lay their lives on the line to claim it isn't. Are you that willing and convinced?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#883 Feb 9, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Quit being so dense. It isn't my argument. It was Seriouslady's argument. I didn't drag the 2d amendment into it, you or one of the other nuts did. The whole point of this part of the discussion was to solely determine whether the "if it save's one child" argument was legitimate in and of itself. That way, we could either stop using it or stop bitching when someone else used it. Carumba.
The lying "nut" who dragged the Second Amendment into this discussion.

Post #836:

http://www.topix.com/forum/columbus/TIPBCSVK1...

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#884 Feb 9, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>lol.. I never said I bat both ways, and I certainly never said I wouldn't. I'm not sure why you bring it up, do you think it bothers me or something? Do you really think you are that important that you questioning my sexuality would make one bit of difference to me? Lol... I hope you have a plan B.
Government is only in the business of marriage for the express purpose of directing society as society at large deems fit. Government was never involved in what we call marriage until until some king in Europe attempted to wrestle power away from the church and in the US, government only got involved for the legal disposition of property and offspring.
Now, all of that can be accomplished without marriage. Marriage from a government perspective is pretty much negated in today's age. however, as long as it exists as a product of arcane expression of power to influence the good of the subjects under it, then adding to it is nothing but asking for extra rights.
No where in any law concerning marriage that I can find does it say anything about attraction or love or feelings or anything. You can marry someone entirely for business purposes or you could become legal for religious purposes. It simply does not take any of it into consideration. The argument of attraction or love is a non sequitor in this matter.
Well--you have been pretty cagy about your actual experiences, but you did allude to threesomes in which you were not the only male. And you have a very peculiar assessment of intercourse as being primarily a mechanical experience and admit to being with women you didn't think much of just to get your rocks off. And you also seem to think that it is reasonable to expect people who marry to select folks they are not attracted to sexually. So--you can see where my impressions come from.

But--the government interest in marriage springs from the disposition of property, as you suggest, but also from a need to ensure that children are cared for and not dependent on the state. Marriage laws also clarify some other things such as decision-making should one become incapacitated. Yes--one can legally recreate an approximation of this legally through creating lots of commitments and so forth. Hardly as reliable. Certainly far more expensive. And the question becomes, why should this be required of some couples and not others.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#885 Feb 9, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of denial.
It's a fact, Jack!

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#886 Feb 9, 2013
In case anyone is still interested in the original topic, I have been pondering lately on the difference between the BSA and the GSA lately. The BSA, in addition to being embroiled in this particular issue, seems to be stuck in something of a time warp. They are still focused on knot-tying and camping--so far as I can tell. When my son was young we went through a pretty unsuccessful attempt to start a program in our area. There was a lot of pressure to participate in fund-raising. Large organized events were never a good fit (kids were handed a "kit" and a week later expected to have fashioned a block of wood with wheels into a "racer."). I put in a fair effort as a parent, but wasn't disappointed when the group dissolved.

But--the Girl Scouts seem to be more focused on the contemporary issues. Saw some folks on TV this AM talking about the GSA focus on getting more girls to study in STEM fields, to break out of stereotypical expectations (including some laughs over the image that black girls don't camp). The have taken some hits recently--some attempts to tie them to Planned Parenthood (apparently the tie was that they attended the same conference), and a mild brouhaha over the decision to welcome a transgendered kid. Overall, it seems as though the organization if much better focused on mission and possesses a greater clarity with regard to purpose.

BSA seems to be struggling for any meaningful context except for maintaiining historical ties and funding streams. And I say this knowing a number of folks at the grass roots level who have contributed big portions of their lives to (boy) scouting. I think that, in the absence of strong national purpose or leadership, that allowing individual locales to develop their own policies regarding gay scouts and leaders is one that makes sense.

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#887 Feb 9, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
In case anyone is still interested in the original topic, I have been pondering lately on the difference between the BSA and the GSA lately. The BSA, in addition to being embroiled in this particular issue, seems to be stuck in something of a time warp. They are still focused on knot-tying and camping--so far as I can tell. When my son was young we went through a pretty unsuccessful attempt to start a program in our area. There was a lot of pressure to participate in fund-raising. Large organized events were never a good fit (kids were handed a "kit" and a week later expected to have fashioned a block of wood with wheels into a "racer."). I put in a fair effort as a parent, but wasn't disappointed when the group dissolved.
But--the Girl Scouts seem to be more focused on the contemporary issues. Saw some folks on TV this AM talking about the GSA focus on getting more girls to study in STEM fields, to break out of stereotypical expectations (including some laughs over the image that black girls don't camp). The have taken some hits recently--some attempts to tie them to Planned Parenthood (apparently the tie was that they attended the same conference), and a mild brouhaha over the decision to welcome a transgendered kid. Overall, it seems as though the organization if much better focused on mission and possesses a greater clarity with regard to purpose.
BSA seems to be struggling for any meaningful context except for maintaiining historical ties and funding streams. And I say this knowing a number of folks at the grass roots level who have contributed big portions of their lives to (boy) scouting. I think that, in the absence of strong national purpose or leadership, that allowing individual locales to develop their own policies regarding gay scouts and leaders is one that makes sense.
Leave it to you to trash something as decent and challenging as the Pinewood Derby.
Adif understanding

United States

#888 Feb 9, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Well--you have been pretty cagy about your actual experiences, but you did allude to threesomes in which you were not the only male. And you have a very peculiar assessment of intercourse as being primarily a mechanical experience and admit to being with women you didn't think much of just to get your rocks off. And you also seem to think that it is reasonable to expect people who marry to select folks they are not attracted to sexually. So--you can see where my impressions come from.[/quote]I think you are still missing the point. It doesn't matter what you think. There are few reasons why you should be concerned about my sexuality and most of them have to do with having sex with you or someone you are having sex with. I don't think that is happening.

[QUOTE who="FKA Reader"]But--the government interest in marriage springs from the disposition of property, as you suggest, but also from a need to ensure that children are cared for and not dependent on the state. Marriage laws also clarify some other things such as decision-making should one become incapacitated. Yes--one can legally recreate an approximation of this legally through creating lots of commitments and so forth. Hardly as reliable. Certainly far more expensive. And the question becomes, why should this be required of some couples and not others.
It's not required of some couple and not others. It's required of all couples wanting to do that which are not married. I mean seriously, If I shack up with a girl, I would have to do the same. If a friend and I decide to purchase a building or car together, we have to go through all that. If you and a stranger want to do the same, you will have to do the same. What you are saying is that because two people who aren't qualified for marriage (be it two gay men, a brother and sister or father daughter, or 60 year old man and 15 year old kid) don't have the same abilities and benefits as someone who is married, the laws should be changed to allow them to marry because they have somehow justified it through love or convenience, or financial stability, pagan ritual or whatever else imaginable.

either way, it is not equal rights, it is extra rights. I can think of a thousand reasons why something that is illegal for me to do but legal for others should include me. And like Gay marriage, it all boils down to not wanting to conform to the requirement society at large has set forth.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#889 Feb 9, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>Leave it to you to trash something as decent and challenging as the Pinewood Derby.
Well, my experience, as well that that of others, is that the block of wood with wheels requires significant adult participation--not to mention tools, in order to become a racer.

So far as I can tell, it is being maintained for the enjoyment of a few adults who have invested in the racing hills and who enjoy making cars. Can't see that it has much to do with the kids.

If you have a rational defense, feel free to offer it.

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#890 Feb 9, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, my experience, as well that that of others, is that the block of wood with wheels requires significant adult participation--not to mention tools, in order to become a racer.
So far as I can tell, it is being maintained for the enjoyment of a few adults who have invested in the racing hills and who enjoy making cars. Can't see that it has much to do with the kids.
If you have a rational defense, feel free to offer it.
So according to your vast experience with boys, they don't like working with tools, modeling, designing or racing.
Have you ever stopped to consider that the point behind it is to educate by having to meet weight and dimensional requirements?
As to your other bizarre remarks, apparently you think knot-tying and camping are as long gone as rubbing two sticks together. Perhaps you need to talk to firefighters or sailors. Or pay a visit to a national park.
Your totally closed mind is fascinating.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#891 Feb 9, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a fact, Jack!
That's a faaaaaact Jack!!!!!.....boom chuga laga boom

Bill Murry, Stripes.
Wait what

Dublin, OH

#892 Feb 9, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, my experience, as well that that of others, is that the block of wood with wheels requires significant adult participation--not to mention tools, in order to become a racer.
So far as I can tell, it is being maintained for the enjoyment of a few adults who have invested in the racing hills and who enjoy making cars. Can't see that it has much to do with the kids.
If you have a rational defense, feel free to offer it.
Sometimes I feel sorry for you, and this is one of those times. Why is having tools a detriment? It's not like you need much more than the basics. Sounds like you had a bad experience and so, as usual, you've decided to trash the whole concept with some made-up judgements. You are in the first person in more years than I care to admit who has complained about the Pinewood Derby. Honestly - complaining because you need tools to fashion a car to race. How very masculine of them!

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#893 Feb 9, 2013
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
Sometimes I feel sorry for you, and this is one of those times. Why is having tools a detriment? It's not like you need much more than the basics. Sounds like you had a bad experience and so, as usual, you've decided to trash the whole concept with some made-up judgements. You are in the first person in more years than I care to admit who has complained about the Pinewood Derby. Honestly - complaining because you need tools to fashion a car to race. How very masculine of them!
Spot on! That's why she's crying...to her, Scouting is too "male-centric" and not urban enough. I'm frankly shocked that she let her kid recite the oath.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Republicans are Fun 22 min REAL American 170
For Cat Lovers Only! 34 min Doc 22
News Four accused of trafficking slave labor at egg ... 1 hr clo 17
White House Republican hopefuls want curbs on ... 1 hr clo 2
Poll Who Do You Support For President 3 hr d pantz 149
horrific last-lap accident at Daytona 5 hr BIzzyBee II 7
Xenos Christian Fellowship is a CULT! (Jul '12) 6 hr Uber Genius 1,184
More from around the web

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages