Originally Posted by gansao

Yes a man ranting at a 7 year old is a great gay role model.... bet your mothers proud of you

Some one has to tell these kids we exist and what they are being taught is wrong. It won't be their Christianist parents.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Does a companies owner 'force' it to hire an employee because it tells HR to do it?

Typically no

Originally Posted by gansao

Can you give me an example where a male guide leader would be more appropriate to be unchaperoned overnight with girl guides than a woman leader on the grounds that he was more qualified than the woman?

Of the top of my head no, but this question has slowly changed with each asking so it should be understandable why my answer has changed

I did know what I mean.

I did as well, that is why I said you were fishing

I didnt know that you were not aware that boy scouts can be teenagers.

My apologise for believing you knew something about the subject that you were debating

Fishing again.

Once again I apologise for giving the impression that girl guides have communal baths.
When my daughter was a Brownie her troop and her troop leader spent some time away in a camp in the woods.
The troop including the leader had the same ablution and toilet facilties...... but did neither all at the same time.

Yes I know its like a public restroom, male/female being separate, not sharing a bathroom in a house.

I would not have been happy for the Brownie leader to have been a man ..even if you would be happy for your daughter to have a male leader alone with vulnerable young girls while they bathe , change and sleep .
I would be at least as unhappy if my daughter was a 15/16/17 year old girl guide was alone with her troop with a male leader just as I would be if I had a son of 15/16/17 in the same situation with a male leader that is sexually attracted to males.

I would as well. If they are going camping there should be more than one counselor, regardless of the mix of the kids they should not be all opposite gender.

Even if that upset homosexuals ....or you.

Regardless of who it upset and why it upset them

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Of the top of my head no, but this question has slowly changed with each asking so it should be understandable why my answer has changed

Maybe its because you needlessly and mistakenly introduced a pedophilic element as well as you asserting that a male girl guide leader could be appropriate if he was ' more qualified' but not being able to justify it in the context of this discussion.
Lets ask another one. Can you think of a time when it is appropriate to allow a group of girl guides to be lead by an unchaperoned male troop leader overnight where that male troop leader shares the dormitory/ tent and ablution facilties?

Originally Posted by pappillion001

I did as well, that is why I said you were fishing

I didnt know that you were not aware that boy scouts can be teenagers.

I really dont know what you are talking about. You accuse me of fishing when the truth is that you accusation is groundless and based on your ignorance that boy scouts can be up to 18 years old .
Why you cut and paste the same words that I posted to you when it was obvious that you thought that boy scouts were younger than teenagers ( hence the false accusation of me accusing homosexual scout leaders of being pedophiles when being attracted to older scouts would not constitute pedophilia)
Pointing out your ignorance does not amount to fishing. However your groundless accusation of fishing amounts to dodging admitting your mistake

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Fishing again.

Dodging again

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Yes I know its like a public restroom, male/female being separate, not sharing a bathroom in a house.

No you dont.I dont believe that you have been there.
We still havent got onto the problem of the leader using the same dormitory.
When the girls are washed and in their night clothes would you think it was appropriate for a man to share the dormitory?

Originally Posted by pappillion001

I would as well. If they are going camping there should be more than one counselor, regardless of the mix of the kids they should not be all opposite gender.

Why should they not all be the opposite gender?

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Regardless of who it upset and why it upset them

Yes. A homosexual scout leader supervising young teenage boys overnight is as inappropriate as a male guide leader supervising young teenage girls overnight. If you are willing to allow the exact equivalent of a male guide leader supervising young girls overnight just to avoid upsetting homosexuals then you really need upsetting and so do they.

Originally Posted by Matthew S

Some one has to tell these kids we exist and what they are being taught is wrong. It won't be their Christianist parents.

You think that ranting at a 7 year old is going to show them what they are being taught is WRONG? Jeez Matthew you are part of the problem not the answer and you are too bitter and twisted to realise it.

Originally Posted by Matthew S

Some one has to tell these kids we exist and what they are being taught is wrong. It won't be their Christianist parents.

And you believe that screaming at random children on the streets and frightening them is the best way to do this? At a minimum that is disturbance of the peace and may lead to you being arrested for threatening behavior in front of a minor.

Originally Posted by Xenamnes

And you believe that screaming at random children on the streets and frightening them is the best way to do this? At a minimum that is disturbance of the peace and may lead to you being arrested for threatening behavior in front of a minor.

That is rich coming from you. You seem to condone this behavior and take the side of the aggressor in these situations, what is different about this one?

Originally Posted by pappillion001

That is rich coming from you. You seem to condone this behavior and take the side of the aggressor in these situations, what is different about this one?

What is different about this one is that Matthew S does not plan to engage in what would be considered a legitimate form of public protest. Rather he has advocated confronting random strangers on the streets and verbally assaulting them based on how they have voted on matters that affect the homosexual community.

In the past Matthew S has advocated using the names and addresses of individuals who have voted in favor of banning homosexual marriages to create online searchable databases that are similar to sex offender registries. And now he is advocating the verbal and public assault of minors.

What is different here is that the actions of Matthew S are not likely to be recognized as a legitimate form of public protest for which he would be able to obtain a permit and avoid arrest for carrying out.

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by gansao

Maybe its because you needlessly and mistakenly introduced a pedophilic element as well as you asserting that a male girl guide leader could be appropriate if he was ' more qualified' but not being able to justify it in the context of this discussion.

Nope, that was you. I even gave you a chance to explain how your implied statement could something else, you let it stand.

The context of this discussion has nothing to do with sex, you brought it into it. Doubt me? What is your next question? The issue is whether the guy could remain a scout, not would parents feel comfortable with a gay guy taking their kids camping.

Lets ask another one. Can you think of a time when it is appropriate to allow a group of girl guides to be lead by an unchaperoned male troop leader overnight where that male troop leader shares the dormitory/ tent and ablution facilties?

Yes there is a realistic scenario. Most parents would not approve of one councilor male or female taking a group of the opposite sex to a camp site where they shared facilities. I doubt most councilors would think it a good idea.

I really dont know what you are talking about. You accuse me of fishing when the truth is that you accusation is groundless and based on your ignorance that boy scouts can be up to 18 years old .
Why you cut and paste the same words that I posted to you when it was obvious that you thought that boy scouts were younger than teenagers ( hence the false accusation of me accusing homosexual scout leaders of being pedophiles when being attracted to older scouts would not constitute pedophilia)
Pointing out your ignorance does not amount to fishing. However your groundless accusation of fishing amounts to dodging admitting your mistake

FYI venture scouts can be 21. So are you trying to say that once a kid hits puberty they are fair game for adults or that you comment somehow wasn't sexual in nature? IF you want to get technical then the issue you were insinuating could be pedophilia, Hebephilia or ephebophilia. It doesn't matter though because regardless of the technical term your point was still that a gay adult male should not be taking a group of young boys camping. Comparing it to a straight male taking a bunch of young girls camping. The problem is that in rither situation any improper acts is not necessarily due to orientation, but would be under one of the phelia.

No mistake, no dodging unless you are referring to yourself. Because you are not yet aware of your ignorance does not mean I am.

Dodging again

Nope

No you dont.I dont believe that you have been there.
We still havent got onto the problem of the leader using the same dormitory.
When the girls are washed and in their night clothes would you think it was appropriate for a man to share the dormitory?

Does anybody?

What has this to do with whether the guy can be an assistant scout master? So he doesn't go camping with the kids or at least by himself to share a one bedroom/toilet/shower campsite, which of course is typical of what Boy Scouts can expect. Next you will start talking about steam rooms and a massage merit badge.

Originally Posted by Xenamnes

What is different about this one is that Matthew S does not plan to engage in what would be considered a legitimate form of public protest. Rather he has advocated confronting random strangers on the streets and verbally assaulting them based on how they have voted on matters that affect the homosexual community.

Like Bible Believers?

In the past Matthew S has advocated using the names and addresses of individuals who have voted in favor of banning homosexual marriages to create online searchable databases that are similar to sex offender registries.

Lots of people want lots of things. Have you given any thought as to why people advocate things like this? I don't agree and would never support it, but I can guess why he would.

And now he is advocating the verbal and public assault of minors.

Like Bible Believers

What is different here is that the actions of Matthew S are not likely to be recognized as a legitimate form of public protest for which he would be able to obtain a permit and avoid arrest for carrying out.

Your Christian organization not only did that but much worse, yet you justify their actions as being legitimate. Why the double standard?

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Typically no

Then those who establish any 'public' group would not be forcing it to accept members merely by giving it orders.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Nope, that was you. I even gave you a chance to explain how your implied statement could something else, you let it stand.

The context of this discussion has nothing to do with sex, you brought it into it. Doubt me? What is your next question? The issue is whether the guy could remain a scout, not would parents feel comfortable with a gay guy taking their kids camping.

Nope it was you that brought up the subject of pedophlia and projected it to me.
You may not know this but homosexuals are defined by their sexual preference so the fact that you believe that sex has nothing to do with it shows your ignorance just as not knowing that boy scouts can be teenagers did.
The context of MY question to you did not involve or suggest pedophilia.

MY issue here NOT whether the guy could remain a scout. it is whether gay scouts can become scout leaders.
My original question to you should have been a clue.
Homosexuals would be just as enraged and MatthewS would still shout at 7 year old scouts/cubs if homosexuals were allowed to join the scouts but not become leaders.
Your disengenuousness is noted.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Yes there is a realistic scenario. Most parents would not approve of one councilor male or female taking a group of the opposite sex to a camp site where they shared facilities. I doubt most councilors would think it a good idea.

Most parents would not approve of a troop leader sharing facilities with young people of the gender that they were sexually attracted to.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

FYI venture scouts can be 21. So are you trying to say that once a kid hits puberty they are fair game for adults or that you comment somehow wasn't sexual in nature? IF you want to get technical then the issue you were insinuating could be pedophilia, Hebephilia or ephebophilia. It doesn't matter though because regardless of the technical term your point was still that a gay adult male should not be taking a group of young boys camping. Comparing it to a straight male taking a bunch of young girls camping. The problem is that in rither situation any improper acts is not necessarily due to orientation, but would be under one of the phelia.

Once again you are making the assumptions. How and when did I say a ' kid hitting puberty is fair game'?
A male guide leader would not be appropriate to young girls when sharing facilities..so a male homosexual guide leader would be inappropriate for young boys when sharing facilties...

It is due to orientation..the potential problems of a male guide leader sharing facilties with girls would be due to orientation and so would the potential problems of a homosexual scout leader sharing facilties with boys..it is an exact comparison no matter how much you try to hide it with insinuations of 'philias'

Can we clarify something? Do you approve of male guide leaders taking girl guides on camp , sharing ablutions and dorms/tents?

Originally Posted by pappillion001

No mistake, no dodging unless you are referring to yourself.

Because you are not yet aware of your ignorance does not mean I am.

Quite amusing since the dodging plus the ignorance comes from you

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Nope

Yup

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Does anybody?

What has this to do with whether the guy can be an assistant scout master? So he doesn't go camping with the kids or at least by himself to share a one bedroom/toilet/shower campsite, which of course is typical of what Boy Scouts can expect. Next you will start talking about steam rooms and a massage merit badge.

I asked this simple question

'Pappi would it be sensible to allow a man who is attracted to other men to be a boy scout leader when it would be deemed not to be sensible to allow a man attracted to women to be a girl guide leader?'

You have flapped from falsely stating that he would have to be a pedophile to stating that I have been suggesting that homosexual scout leaders were pedophiles . Now you are talking about steam rooms and massages.
Fallacious arguments just trip off your keyboard dont they?

Originally Posted by Xenamnes
What is different about this one is that Matthew S does not plan to engage in what would be considered a legitimate form of public protest. Rather he has advocated confronting random strangers on the streets and verbally assaulting them based on how they have voted on matters that affect the homosexual community.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Like Bible Believers?

<chuckle>

Only in Pappi's and Matthew's depraved universe is the truth considered an "assault."

Wise up, Pappi, before you Sodom and Gomorrah lovers perish.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Then those who establish any 'public' group would not be forcing it to accept members merely by giving it orders.

That would be the case public or private. The problem would arise in a public setting where a particular individual is excluded. The question is then is that exclusion valid. The flip side of that is does that hiring threaten the credibility or purpose of the organization and in these cases it almost always comes down to a third party, the courts, being the one to force the issue. Internal conflict over hiring practices rarely goes outside.