From: rcashman@cs.ulowell.edu (The Jester)
Subject: Re: Proposal? (girls, atheists, sexuality)
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Lowell Computer Science
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 00:19:23 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.045642.29861@u36.uucp> bones@u36.uucp (Lance Sibley) writes:
>
[Mr. Sibley's gripes about the level of the conversation and a bit of his
 scouting background deleted.]
>
[Mr. Sibley's babbling about his personal life deleted.]
>We cannot be your pretty little
>"nuclear family," with a home in the suburbs and 2.3 children playing in 
>the yard with the dog.
>
>Says who?
>


Says the ninety-plus percent of American citizens who follow a heterosexual
lifestyle instead of a homosexual one.  Regardless of whether or not adoption
by a homosexual couple can be done, no, you do not form a traditional
nuclear family.  A traditional nuclear family consists of a) a husband (male),
b) a wife (female), and possibly c) one or more children (of either gender).
You and your [sic] "spouse" are not consistent with this traditional nuclear
family ideal.  Get used to that fact.


>You've obviously never been involved in any gay organisation, or set foot
>in any gay bar. One of my roommates, who is about as straight as you can
>get, goes dancing with my fiance and I on a regular basis. He also attends
>the campus gay group's weekly meetings, something neither I nor my fiance
>have done in months. He's never been kicked out of either.


I went to a gay bar with a homosexual friend of mine just recently, to make
sure that I had my facts straight.  I was not-so-politely asked to leave.  I
asked why, and the gentleman at the door responded that I was not welcome
because I was "obviously" straight.  So much for the self-righteous attitude
of the detractors of the BSA: its a two way street, folks.

By the same token, I have attended the campus organization for gay and lesbian
support with this friend.  I have continually been given the cold shoulder.
I do not attend meetings of the group anymore.


>>In short, the BSA
>>has no problem with homosexuals as people; rather, its the homosexual life-
>>style that is (and will remain) the stumbling block.
>
>Why?


Take a good, long, hard look at your sexual preference, and the fact that you
are about to [sic] "marry" a member of your own sex, and perhaps you'll see
that it isn't a traditional norm.


>>generally speaking, a homosexual lifestyle
>>is not condusive to a typical and traditional family life
>
>Define "typical." My parents divorced after 18 years of abusing each other
>mentally, verbally and physically (and almost as long abusing me). Is this 
>"typical?" If I marry my fiance, and we remain faithfully monogamous toward 
>each other for the rest of our lives together, loving each other and trying
>our hardest not to hurt each other, even unintentionally, is this atypical? 
>Why?


It is atypical.  The definition of typical is "that which the majority prac-
tices."  The majority of people in America do not practice [sic] same-sex
"marriages".  I don't care how wonderful your relationship is, it is not
typical in terms of the participants.

If "typical" doesn't work, try on "traditional."  Is the [sic] "marriage"
you're about to enter into a traditional norm?


>>as a private organization, the BSA can refuse membership to anyone it wishes
>>(and really doesn't even have to state a reason).  
>
>Granted. That doesn't make it right. As many other people have pointed out
>in this thread, you can replace "BSA" in the above sentence with "KKK."


And you could also replace "BSA" with the name of just about any private
college or university and any privately-owned corporation or business.  Though
many of these organizations have subscribed to being "equal opportunity" in
order to gain public funding, they could simply resort to private funding
and maintain whatever membership they desired.  Of course, I would submit that
it is the attachment to this public funding that keeps these organizations
"equal opportunity" rather than any love for ethnic and social minorities.
But that is another issue altogether.

In any case, stop comparing the BSA with the KKK: its ignorant and inflammatory
gay-rights rhetoric.


>>I'd consider them more hypocritical to buckle under
>>to you people than to continue to stand up to you and refuse to com-
>>promise the reasons behind its decision.
>
>Our point, however, is that those reasons must be re-thought. We do not
>consider them valid.
[Mr. Sibley's comments about his own opinions and relationships deleted.]


YOU do not.  Many other people (myself included) do.


>"Grand scheme?" Oh dear, better cross-post to alt.conspiracy. :-) Seriously,
>what "grand scheme" are you referring to, and how does my intent to form
>a life-long, monogamous homosexual relationship contradict this scheme?


By "grand scheme" I meant (and assumed everyone understood) the ideals that
the organization stands for.  A [sic] same-sex "marriage" is not consistent
with the traditional family ideal that the BSA encourages.

As a previous poster said, nobody is born with the God-given right to belong
to every organization in the world.  Nobody said life is fair, and, to quote
that previous poster, "we are not here to make it so."  As I have said time
and time again, if you cannot or will not conform to the ideals of an organ-
ization, that organization has the right to deny you membership.  End of
lecture.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Cashman (The Jester)			    	rcashman@cs.ulowell.edu

"There's a place I like to hide,
 A doorway that I run through in the night."		- Geoff Tate
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.scouting