Bowers was a US SUPREME COURT case, as was its successor, Lawrence v. Texas. Had you clicked on the link I conveniently provided, you would have/should have noticed that.

I really showed my ass on that one. You were right. I was wrong.

Thorne wrote: I really showed my ass on that one. You were right. I was wrong.

I am sure some of the anti-Christ (no pun intended) comments sting you and thorne and tradman as much as the heterocentric/anti-gay comments sting me. I apologize for, in retaliation, having labeled you as a bigot and homophobe (though that is what your comments demonstrate), if that insulted you. Since you have labeled myself and others (as hell-bound destroyers of decent living) on occassion, hopefully you understand.

Now, in an effort towards understanding each other as human beings and not as labels with contradictory political agendas - here is an open invitation for you to visit me. I will put you up in my home and show you around Europe. Only one rule: I won't preach to you about your lifestyle and you won't preach to me about mine. Since you have gay friends (as I remember from the don't-ask thread) and I have a Catholic mother, we should have practice at that. Right?

In reality the BSA wouldn't have had to change at all from how they started and in todays culture they would rightfully be viewed as "overrun by religious zealots as a means of polarizing the organization due to charged political motives". Our present culture doesn't hold the same values that it did when the BSA started, any one could see that. So maybe its the culture thats overrun with antireligious zealots trying to polarize everybody else.
Juts the other side of the coin.

Hey jerrymyuh, it's a matter of taking BACK this country. it has strayed far from the Christian nation you erroneously believe Christians think it might be....putz.

Should my tax dollars and government support these secular activities?

He wrote: "It seems to me that the religious zealot wants to force his beliefs on others while the anti religious zealot has no beliefs to enforce so is only forcing his government to not be religious."

But why? Because he/she believes this is better, truer, more scientific, more humane, and all that jazz. So you ask, "How do you know that?" and you're fed a bunch of shuck and jive, or quotes from authorities, or get stonewalled with technical jargon and screwy re-definitions, or lambasted for having to ask in the first place when in fact very few people know much of anything in terms of broad-stroke, human activities. When you actually look, almost everything to do with human relations is based on beliefs, often fobbed off as "the plain and active truth."

The B.S. of A. believe that if they were to allow gay scout leaders in their ranks the Children of God would run the risk of being sodomized or encouraged, by tacit approval, to sodomize their fellow man. Or you might move up the ladder of beliefs to other beliefs that -- if the sodomy angle is too much (and it is) -- that at the very least gay scout leaders are anti-God and anti-Christian, or bad examples, or just plain bad as described and defined by yet other beliefs based a distored vew of what a gay person actually is. And this last belief is that a gay person is false and inauthentic and mentally, emotionally and sexually diseased. This last belief--homosexuality as pathology--is the last line of defense of the kook and the zealot, and when it's proffered as something different than a belief (for example, at true, as a self-evident fact, et al), you have nothing less than the Devil's work being conducted in the name of God.

It's totally jackass to even be discussing this in 2006. What the hell . . . are you kidding me?

JL

Your tax dollars already support secular activities. You're probably pretty content that they do.

:righton:

Well said. Religious-style thinking - "it is this way because I believe/some guy told me/my prejudices say it is" infects, to a greater or lesser extent, every aspect of human endeavour - religious and secular, government and (unfortunately) scientific.

We can't really help it. We're herd animals at heart - we have this built-in drive to follow what the herd leader tells us. Sad really.

Please be a bit more specific.

Never fear, blonde one, there's plenty of support still out there...

When I land a job, which won't be too long from now, I plan to support the BSA financially and professionally (as a metal craft merit badge/CPR instructor/anything else they can use) faithfully.

I've had it with the intrusions attempted by this ultra-liberal generation.

What mis-leading...that there are Right-wing A-holes in Texas or the Sumpreme Court calling the law unconstitutional...or that you are my....?

One would have to wonder why that law stayed around as long as it did..so the reference to 1990.

There is nothing misleading in my quotes.

Prove them wrong.

In 1990, half the States (including MA, RI, MD and even DC) had anti-homosexual laws. Were they all Right Wing Assholes?

"It took 130 + years and the US Supreme Court to call the law unconstitutional"? Was there any challenge for the first 100 or so years? By and large, it's constitutionality would have been a non-issue 30, 40 or 100 years earlier. Do you think many people considered it unconstitutional in 1950?

Just wanted to clear that up. :wink:

Maybe, however the majority tend to reside in a massive realm comprised of hypocritical political viewpoints.

And kudos on taking your sweet time in formulating a response; guess you just can't stay away from gay controversy for long without having withdrawals.

How eloquently non-specific. Are you considering a career in politics?

Only as long as those dreams stay away. :wink:

Maybe, however the majority tend to reside in a massive realm comprised of hypocritical political viewpoints.

WTF does your reply have have to do with my question? Do you frequently answer simple yes or no questions with such gaseous hypotheticals?

Well, perhaps one day you'll ask a legitimate 'yes or no' question that can sufficiently be answered by a 'yes' or 'no.' In the meantime, I won't provide either/or responses to questions that you've formulated as a means of affirming what you've already convinced yourself of.

.... baffle 'em with s---, eh blondie. :wink: