Super strict "test" of anti-gayness ...

[LeCharivari]

Veering off-topic, but when I was last there (1980's) it was quite "bohemian", and apart from on a few beaches I barely noticed any gays.

..... apologies if it was felt my post was "OT" - it was simply an observation on the lack of any relevance of this test in the real world, with no cynicism or sarcasm intended or, even in hindsight on re-reading, readable into it.

[LeCharivari]

There are gay people who don't want to be included and identifyed as gay. Self hating is very common among gay community. People who are not comfortable being gay dont want to be gay, and they certainly dont want to be part of 'we', and gay communiy. It must be very stressful not being comfortable with who you are. Sent from my C6802 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I love these amateur psychologists who think that anyone who doesn't share their point of view must be 'self haters'.

I support your thought as far as the need to be careful in going overboard with GENERALIZATIONS. However, there are such people as self hating gays, gays with severe INTERNALIZED homophobia, etc. I think there are a lot of similarities to self hating Jews ... there are many of those as well. I would be a bit shy of rushing to label specific people that way though.

As far as the test in the OP, I think it might be too strict a standard. I have known people who are reasonably tolerant of gay people who still would have a problem sending their boy child to a gay boy scout leader. I know it is not fair to assume bad things about a gay boy scout leader only based on being gay, but I have some compassion for their fears about their children as well.

I have never understood the connection some people make between someone being gay and how that might affect children who are 'exposed' to, or left in the charge of, that person. There seems to be an implied connection to pedophilia, which is unfortunate to say the least, and that a person's sexuality is even remotely relevant when taking care of children, to me, is just nonsense.

As for public displays of affection, personally I don't like them. Not just from gay people, I just don't like them, but that's my issue, and I understand that.

Just as I understand that people have the right to behave how they want to (within reason) either in public or in private.

As for the whole 'gay community' thing, I couldn't comment really. I'm straight, and I don't feel part of a 'straight community' but then there isn't really a need for a straight community, or a lack of straight rights or anything, so I'm unqualified to comment on those issues.

The problem is that a tiny minority of people, of whatever sexual preference, are "predatory" so where parents can minimise that possibility in any way I think its at least understandable that they try to do so.

I don't think there's any sort of idea that you have to be gay to be "qualified" to comment on gay rights - or at least I hope there isn't. Many of those involved with the ANC in South Africa weren't black, nor were many of those involved in black civil rights elsewhere, just as a comparison. If only those who are gay are "qualified" to comment or vote to support gay rights, anti-discrimination, same-sex marriage, etc, we wouldn't have a snowball in hell's chance of any legislation getting passed with only 3% or so of the vote!

Many of us don't necessarily feel any sort of need to be part of a "gay community", either, any more than we see ourselves as part of a black, white, Jewish, Catholic, left-handed, ex-varsity, weight-watchers or any other community. Sexual preference is just one of the many facets of a person's character, so for some people one particular facet is important, for some its not.

The problem with "tests" of this sort is that they only serve the extremists on both sides, and that's never a good thing.

[sustento]

I was there in the 80s. There were lots of gays on Castro

[Jingthing]

I was there in the 80s. There were lots of gays on Castro

And ... the Haight, the Mission, the Loin, Noe Valley, Soma, etc.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[bifftastic]

The problem is that a tiny minority of people, of whatever sexual preference, are "predatory" so where parents can minimise that possibility in any way I think its at least understandable that they try to do so.

I don't think there's any sort of idea that you have to be gay to be "qualified" to comment on gay rights - or at least I hope there isn't. Many of those involved with the ANC in South Africa weren't black, nor were many of those involved in black civil rights elsewhere, just as a comparison. If only those who are gay are "qualified" to comment or vote to support gay rights, anti-discrimination, same-sex marriage, etc, we wouldn't have a snowball in hell's chance of any legislation getting passed with only 3% or so of the vote!

Many of us don't necessarily feel any sort of need to be part of a "gay community", either, any more than we see ourselves as part of a black, white, Jewish, Catholic, left-handed, ex-varsity, weight-watchers or any other community. Sexual preference is just one of the many facets of a person's character, so for some people one particular facet is important, for some its not.

The problem with "tests" of this sort is that they only serve the extremists on both sides, and that's never a good thing.

I suppose you're right about the predatory aspect, or perceived risk, and that predatory risk would be more apparent with a male adult of whatever sexual orientation. But I still feel that pedophilia, which every parent would rightly be concerned about, seems to have become connected with homosexuality at least in the minds of people who would cite 'risk to their children' as a reason for not wanting to leave them in the care of an openly gay man, when they would be perfectly happy to leave them in the care of a man that may, or may not, be straight.

Thanks for the comment about qualification to comment on gay rights I actually see them as human rights, and as such, I am definitely qualified to comment

What I meant was, I feel less than qualified to comment on the efficacy or other wise, of there being a 'gay community'. That's quite a difficult issue, as I can completely understand why you might have no desire to be a part of any such 'movement' and should be able to be regarded as a human being. Yet on the other side of the same coin as I'm sure you're aware, protest, mobilisation of opinion, and unity as a community, have brought about an increase in awareness of persecution, changes in discriminatory laws in many countries. This is also true of many other 'movements' or 'communities'.

So in a way, whether you like it or not, you are part of 'the gay community' and I am not.

Thankfully though, we are both part of the 'human community' and as such we will hopefully be able to support each other in that regard.

[lannarebirth]

We are a very small miniority who have these activists demanding and speaking absolute equality - who elected them ? they certainly don't speak for me

...

I am a member of society first, part of the 3% miniority and I do take offence to PDA's young, old, gay or straight, I as a gay man respect the majority's concern rightly or wrongly that leading a Scout troop could be seen by some as not appropriate

...

We are a very small minority, we should not have the same civil rights, as all other people have?

I read your posts, you seem to identify yourself as gay man. But you agree with homophobic organisations claims and arguments, that we, homosexuals should not have exactly the same rights, that heterosexual people enjoy.

Are you serious, or is your statement sarcastic, and I dont get the sarcasm?

You know, irony and sarcasm are not easy to spot on the internet, and it rarely works on internet, cos its just text, we dont see your facial expression, and we dont hear the tone in your voice, cos web posts are just typed words.. You have to make your sarcastic point is clear and obvious.

So generaton of gay activist in North America are not speaking for you, alltho you are gay man.

Harvey Milk in SF did not fight for your rights, you feel? He did not speak for you? Harvey Milk lost his life, demanding equal rights for people like you and me.

You have said in another tread, that you are from Onario. So you must know who George Hislop was.

He fought for our right to walk the streets of Toronto, without being assaulted by teens from suburbs, who drove around Toronto at night, looking for gay men to beat up. He fought for our rights for years. Surely you know this man. I knew him personally, but only for 2 years before his death.

You feel he wasnt talking, and fighting for people like you and me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hislop

Whatever Harvey Milk may have done to further the interests and rights of those in the gay community, that is not why he lost his life. Dan White shot him because Dan White lost his job as a SF Supervisor and Harvey Milk did not support his reinstatement. Mayor Moscone was killed for the same reason.

[anon8]

Ok. He was killed for another reason.

He is still an iconic gay rights leader.

I dont care for what reason that jesusfreak shot him.

Harvey Milk was, and will forever be a gay rights movement pioneer, and a hero.

Sent from my C6802 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[sustento]

The field is yours. Dissenting voices have been removed. Viva la la land!!!!

Edited December 21, 2013 by sustento

[onthemoon]

If you don't have anything against queer people but wouldn't want a gay man leading your son's scout troop, then you are anti-gay.

i [not so] humbly beg to disagree

simple reason: parental objections and thoughts concerning their children are usually subjective and not objective.

Unfortunately true. But how do you justify a straight male teacher teaching both girls and boys as opposed to a gay male teacher teaching both?

How would you know a boy scout leader is gay or straight unless he is a pedophile and touches the kids? In which case, it doesn't matter whether he is a straight or gay pedo, does it?

[onthemoon]

Just the point I was trying to make (and trying to make in an earlier thread).

I can quite understand why "a majority of parents would strongly object" to a straight man leading a group of teenage girl scouts, and vice-versa. I think most of us can. Their "fears" may be groundless and their "worries" may have nothing to do with pedophilia per se, but that doesn't make them any less real or any less valid.

.... and IF a straight man should not be leading a group of teenage girl scouts, its equally logical and rational that a gay man should not be leading a group of teenage boy scouts for exactly the same reasons.

... and equally, IF there's nothing wrong with a gay man leading a group of teenage boys there should be nothing wrong with a straight man leading a group of teenage girls, and vice-versa.

You can't support or oppose one, rationally, without the other.

Its not just about EQUALITY, which is what the authors of these sort of tests bang on about, but about CONSISTENCY - applying the same rules and same "tests" to everyone ... and in the context of scouts, consistency would seem to mean that parents and children should have the choice of girl scouts, boy scouts, or mixed scouts (including boys, girls, special needs, LGBT, all religions, no religions, etc).

Equality without consistency is simply a sham.

If we excuse our own bigotry on the basis that we're only a small minority so our bigotry doesn't do as much harm as the big majority's, and we don't pay others the same respect in return that we demand from them, then we don't deserve equality.

i agree with each and everything you said. that's why, if this is an answer to a part of my posting,

"like it or not, the fact remains that a majority of parents would strongly object that a gay male or lesbian female leads a group of teenage boy/girl scouts for "outings"."

you are barking up the wrong tree. neither your nor my opinion changes prevailing facts which are based on the indoctrination "gay is bad" and to get rid of this indoctrination an open mind, a very long time and perhaps a whole new generation is needed to overcome any bias.

ask an educated non-religious Hindu to eat beef, an educated non-religious Muslim to eat pork or ask an average Joe whether he would like to try a cat stew or deliciously prepared dog embryo.

I am not really getting the analogy in your last sentence, please explain.

[onthemoon]

I was there in the 80s. There were lots of gays on Castro

There are still a lot of gays in the Castro, as I can confirm from a visit last year. That's good for a vacation, but too much to live there.

[anon8]

Just the point I was trying to make (and trying to make in an earlier thread). I can quite understand why "a majority of parents would strongly object" to a straight man leading a group of teenage girl scouts, and vice-versa. I think most of us can. Their "fears" may be groundless and their "worries" may have nothing to do with pedophilia per se, but that doesn't make them any less real or any less valid. .... and IF a straight man should not be leading a group of teenage girl scouts, its equally logical and rational that a gay man should not be leading a group of teenage boy scouts for exactly the same reasons. ... and equally, IF there's nothing wrong with a gay man leading a group of teenage boys there should be nothing wrong with a straight man leading a group of teenage girls, and vice-versa. You can't support or oppose one, rationally, without the other. Its not just about EQUALITY, which is what the authors of these sort of tests bang on about, but about CONSISTENCY - applying the same rules and same "tests" to everyone ... and in the context of scouts, consistency would seem to mean that parents and children should have the choice of girl scouts, boy scouts, or mixed scouts (including boys, girls, special needs, LGBT, all religions, no religions, etc). Equality without consistency is simply a sham. If we excuse our own bigotry on the basis that we're only a small minority so our bigotry doesn't do as much harm as the big majority's, and we don't pay others the same respect in return that we demand from them, then we don't deserve equality.

i agree with each and everything you said. that's why, if this is an answer to a part of my posting,

"like it or not, the fact remains that a majority of parents would strongly object that a gay male or lesbian female leads a group of teenage boy/girl scouts for "outings"."

you are barking up the wrong tree. neither your nor my opinion changes prevailing facts which are based on the indoctrination "gay is bad" and to get rid of this indoctrination an open mind, a very long time and perhaps a whole new generation is needed to overcome any bias. ask an educated non-religious Hindu to eat beef, an educated non-religious Muslim to eat pork or ask an average Joe whether he would like to try a cat stew or deliciously prepared dog embryo.

I am not really getting the analogy in your last sentence, please explain.

LOL I also read that post over and over, couldnt grasp it. I think its random, like an art film, nobody gets it, cos there is nothing there, just random words, and those who claim to get it lie.I very much doubt these deep thoughts can be explained.

[Scott]

I am not sure what Naam is getting at, but I think it has to do with the cultural element of human nature. Even people who may not have a religious reason for not eating certain foods might find them offensive. By extension, people may have nothing against gays, but might not like the idea of a gay/lesbian scout leader with their son/daughter.

I think a lot of the comparisons are not quite the same. A teacher usually wouldn't go on a camping expedition with students and I think that is where parents might get concerned. It's probably a structural problem in the scouting system and it would probably be best to make sure there is more than one adult along.

There is so much confusion between pedophiles and gays and most parents wouldn't want to put their children in a situation where they might come to harm of any kind, sexual or otherwise. Parents are irrationally protective of children -- it's not something that is rational or easily explained.