One gets the sense that there wouldn’t have to be a gay ban in the Boy Scouts of America if homosexuals had not become an official “oppressed community”. Simply keeping one’s private sex life to oneself and avoiding making advances on fellow scouts would have been good enough. Sure, it sounds “repressive,” but we all have to make concessions from time to time. How many churchgoing men have to keep their mouths shut in service? How many of us have to play along at sensitivity training at work? Even atheists are banned from scout leadership, and surely there are far more atheists than homosexuals in the United States.
I feel a bit sorry for the Boy Scouts, because they are in a difficult position. The majority of parents who put their children in the Boy Scouts are conservatives, who may or may not be tolerant of homosexuals, but probably prefer to keep them away from their sons. If Scouts allowed open homosexuals to join as scout leaders, it would take a devastating toll on the organization, because Americans have a way of saying one thing and doing another where their children are concerned.
As an example, Americans love to pay lip service to diversity, but they act in the opposite manner where public education is concerned, often incurring significant expense merely to get their children into a “good” school district. I’m sure the exact same thing will happen in scouting. In public, parents will say “oh, sure, we support gay rights,” but when it comes down to whether or not they want Johnny to go on overnight scouting trips with a 25-year-old openly gay man, many will quietly remove Johnny from the scouts.
There is a real issue with having gay adult men with adolescent boys. Leaving gay men alone with adolescent boys is about as smart as leaving straight men alone with adolescent girls — not a good idea. Some men can handle it pretty well – probably most of them most of the time – but an awful lot of them cannot. In an organization of millions, it’s going to be a big, big problem. A big and expensive problem.
However, everyone knows this, so why the big push to make the Boy Scouts openly gay friendly?
Scouting organizations have long come under suspicion from totalitarian regimes. There is something about scouting that drives control freaks crazy. It gets them so uptight that many communist and fascist countries banned independent scouting organizations.
Here are a few regimes that banned or took over scouting in the past and present:
-USSR, scouts banned in 1918; replaced by “pioneers”
-Nazi Germany, scouts taken over in 1934; replaced by Hitler Jugend
-Cuba, scouts banned in 1961; replaced by José Martí Pioneer Organization
-Iraq, scouts taken over by state in 1979; subsequently called “Saddam Cubs”
The attack on scouts in the US today is part of the same impulse. Leftists hate and fear the scouts, and they are using gay rights as a wedge issue to destroy them. Scouting must be crushed, for it represents patriarchal values, masculine independence, and initiative — all without direct government oversight! Oh, think of all the horrible things they could be up to. Scheming to oppress women into relationships, to lower tax rates and to wreck our socialist utopia. That will not do; we’ll all be much better off if we put those suspicious little boys in public schools and other programs that are directly controlled by state or – even better – federal government, so as to keep a close watch on them and keep them from getting too big for their britches.
So, as a patriotic American, I propose a new scouting organization created under the auspices of the federal government. Let’s name it the “Rainbow Scouts,” and have the little boys say a daily devotion before a giant picture of President Obama. They can learn about how not to be little oppressors, and how better to serve their leader and moral superiors. No more of that potential sabotage activity like orienteering and rigging — their new focus will be on political repentance and indoctrination.
Finally, we will have our victory over the evil force of the Boy Scouts of America, a bastion of right reactionary subversives.
In closing, isn’t it odd to see how Barack Obama is so consistently using gays and women to bring rival institutions to heel? I think this must be unprecedented in the history of the world.
{ 36 comments… read them below or add one }
I fear for the United States now, given that we are on the fast-track trajectory towards becoming like a combination of the former USSR, Nazi Germany, Cuba and Saddam Hussein-era Iraq all rolled into one.
“Leaving gay men alone with adolescent boys is about as smart as leaving straight men alone with adolescent girls — not a good idea.”
Nor leaving straight women (teachers) alone with adolescent boys as we are reminded of every month. Although that, of course, is another matter entirely. The mere thought of all those eveel 12 year old boys trying to exploit the vulnerabilities of poor 35 year old women must send the N.O.W. into paroxysms of rage.
I wonder how long it will be before some bright spark at the Scouts thinks of allowing women to become Boy Scout Leaders to allay any fears of PC discrimination and legal challenges?
Oh wait, what was I thinking?
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/02/14/us/boy-scouts-to-allow-women-to-be-leaders.html
Oh well, I’m sure men will be allowed to be Girl Scout Leaders without any restrictions, right? I mean otherwise it would just be sexist….
http://www.ehow.com/how_4495720_become-girl-scout-troop-leader.html
I’m sure it will all turn out roses, though; what could possibly go wrong? Thank God, another victory for the forces of progress.
When will one of these organizations just state simply no to these pressures? If the scouts cave, they cease to be in their true form. Evil corrupts that which it wishes to control, making a new malformed doppleganger in its place. This is the main method of Communists until they control something enough to use brute force.
Boy and Girl Scouts is totally sexist.
There should just be a “Scouts” or “American Scouts”, where boys, girls, hetero-normative, gay, lesbian and trans-gendered are allowed to participate equally regardless of gender, in promoting an all inclusive and tolerant environment. We already have this in the military and the Scouts are a natural stepping stone to serving one’s country.
If boys are not to feel uncomfortable living among gay men and boys in intimate camping conditions, then why should girls feel uncomfortable sleeping near hetero-normative adult men? Are gay men held to a higher moral standard? They’ll even allow lesbian boy scout leaders, but will not allow hetero-normative male girl scout leaders. And yet they’ll allow trans-boys in the girl scouts. Will they allow trans-girls in the boy scouts? Will Peppermint Patty be denied access?
If young women can be exposed to men in combat regarding some of the most intimate bodily functions and hygiene practices; why can’t girl scouts have hetero-normative men leading them? Or even gay men?
The Boy Scouts is a Christian, right leaning/traditional organization.
The Girls Scouts is a Secular, left leaning/feminist organization.
Using political correctness to divide and destroy any and all right leaning organizations is the master plan – starting with the Republican Party, (academia and the mass media have already been conquered).
Once the boy scouts confessed to decades of pedophilia, they rooted out all the disgusting perverts. They’re starting from a clean slate. It’s finally safe to allow gays and lesbians, trans-gendered, bisexuals, intersexuals, asexuals and questioning sexuals. It’s imperative we include the entire spectrum of the LBGTQIA community, lest we appear insensitive to diversity.
I was a Cub Scout and I enjoyed it, and I joined the Boy Scouts but never really liked the lack of direction and quit after a few months, but I have a good idea what they are about.
The whole point of the Boy Scouts is to teach Boys valuable skills, values of civilization and life skills to 11-12 year old boys. Why 11 year olds? Because right after this age, the boys start to discover girls. And, once boys discover girls/sex, they stop listening to their parents on a lot of things. The Boy Scouts as an organization is best understood as a last ditch effort to teach boys as much as possible before they stop listening.
And that’s why gay scout leaders doesn’t make sense, even if fears of child abuses stemming from history could be fixed or solved. The Boy Scout organization has an interest in avoiding broaching sex issues as much as possible, because once the boys discover sex, they will stop focusing attention to the tasks assigned by their scoutmasters.
Since the Boy Scouts are interested in avoiding sexual discussion, that Supreme Court litigant, who was not just gay but a proud queer marcher & advocate for change was uniquely unqualified to be a Scoutmaster. A man who devoted his life to sexual issues is uniquely unqualified to be in an organization interest in teaching everything but those issues.
It is thus ironic that the founder of Scouting, Lord Baden-Powell, is said to have been Homo-sexual. An especial interest in young boys – even if entirely non-sexual – is always cause for suspicion, of, at least, suppressed sexual-desire. As a former Boy Scout I thus have memories of Scouting and they are entirely non-sexual. I loved it.
.. and talking of bans, ‘Gays’ have a lot of political clout. They have the ear of government, who facilitate all their demands; those demands are as I see it, anti-Christian – or at least intolerant of Christians, and indeed Gays often seem to go out of their wayto antagonise Christains – and by default, anti-Heterosexual and anti-Family; for they always present themselves as victims, when in fact their small numbers are now oppressing the majority. The demand for tolerance and turning a blind-eye, has now developed into pushing their weight around, with the accusation of Homo-phobia at anyone who does not agree with the slightest of their demands. Even last Summer our Deputy P.M. was flying the Rainbow flag above 10 Downing Street, so is it any wonder that although the provision was neither in The Conservatives Election Manifesto nor in the recent Queen’s Speech, The Ministr-ess for Equality yesterday introduced into The Commons a Bill to allow marriage between two people even though they are not of different sexes. The measure carried on the reading but split the Conservatives in half. Whether this will have damaged the P.M., or whether it will scupper The Tories election chances in (probably) 2015 remains to be seen. My own feeling is that the Tories have crossed some kind of Rubicon. Now, ‘Gays’ have both the possibility of Civil Partnerships and Marriage, whereas Heteros have only Marriage, and Gays cannot, unlike Heteroes be Divorced on the grounds of Adultery. I take the view that it is no more possible for two men to be ‘married’ than it is for a pair of scissors to have less than two parts. Under the guise of equality what happens is that to raise Gays up to equal status with Heteros it is necessary by default to belittle (ordinary) Marriage (which is in a very bad state anyway). Who would want to marry now that it is a ‘Gay’ thing. I suspect that just as Feminsm is essentially envy of Males with whom they cannot adequaltely compete and thus results in Feminist attempts to destroy men; that likewise giving into Gay demands to appear ‘normal’ is a de facto attempt to undermine Heterosexuality. Of course it has caused consternation in The Church of England who have been given an opt-out, but Civil Registrar’s face the sack should they fail to perform the ceremony, and Teachers who are less than enthusiastic, even when it is against their religious views, must surely also face the possibility of dismissal. Of course, if the past is anything to go by, there will be further demands, and as Marriage no longer depends on the possiblity of a lifetime commitment to producing and raising the next generation, there now seems no objection in principle to Polygamous marriage, Time-limited marriage or marriage with no sexual content at all. It can only be a matter of time before there is pressure to firstly de-criminalise Incest (the other Taboo) and then reduce gradually the levels of consanguinity. If that seems in the realms of fantasy, I can assure you that if you went back fifty or so years and told people that Homosexuals would be able to marry in 2013 you would have been laughed at. Homosexuality resulted in automatic expulsion when I was a school-boy. The fact that they may love each other is no more to the point than that I may love my Dog or my Cat, or for that matter my Mother or my Daughter (if I had any of those which as it happens I don’t) – yet that seems to be the main plank on which these proposals carried The Commons yesterday. The Lords will attempt to tear it to pieces, but of course it will ultimately gain the Royal Assent.
I regret having to write the above as there are some fine commentators at this blog such as Andy Bob, who, what I write, may offend.
Yes, the entire force and weight of govt is arrayed against hetero-normative white boys and men.
Not because it furthers minority power to destroy male privilege,but to further a Marxist Police State.
These “‘Sons of liberty” must be undermind,boxed in,caged,subverted,drugged,poisoned spiritually,mentally,and physically to destroy any and all resistance to perversion and corruption.
It is the bugle cry of the death march.
Who can hear the call?
Who dares resist?
What is the penalty for resistance?
Whatever the legal challenges may be,it will be the blue uniformed gun-carrying cop that delivers the summons/arrest.
The thing blue line has been recruited to use for black shirts and rainbow sodomites.
Not blue anymore,tainted,yes TAINTED,
With the stain and stench of mindless servitude to EVIL.
“There is a real issue with having gay adult men with adolescent boys. Leaving gay men alone with adolescent boys is about as smart as leaving straight men alone with adolescent girls — not a good idea. Some men can handle it pretty well – probably most of them most of the time – but an awful lot of them cannot. In an organization of millions, it’s going to be a big, big problem. A big and expensive problem.”
You might want to think twice about this sentence, because if it is true, then perhaps we need to worry about all those heterosexual men left alone with adolescent girls – in homes, classrooms, parks, stores and maybe even in Girl Scouts. Do you really think it’s unsafe for straight men to be around adolescent girls?
Pirran – I am sure that will come. Here in Canada, we used to have boy scouts and girls guides. Some time in the last 20 odd years girls were allowed to join scouts. So now we have scouts for girls and boys, and guides for girls only. I have a son in cub scouts (7-10 yo), and another son in beavers (5-7 yo). Most of the beaver leadership is women and I think they do a good job, especially with kids (boys and girls) that young. It would be nice to see more male leadership as they graduate from cubs to scouts, but as long as they are doing a good job, and I believe they are in my sons group, I would rather have female leadership than no scouting. A big problem I believe is men are scared away, with good reason from getting involved with youth activities. Unless our culture changes that situation is not going to change.
Its been mentioned here, although I haven’t seen it mentioned in any of the other debate on this subject, but if I had a 14 yo daughter I sure as hell wouldn’t want her going on a camping trip with male leaders. Giving homosexuals access to your young sons is the same thing
You mean together alone, on overnights, like in Boy Scouts? If so, it isn’t a problem unless it bothers you (or your organization) that they will occasionally have sex with each other.
It’s not safe for anyone to be left completely alone with anyone.
Certainly not safe for women to be left alone with young boys.
Ok, I get it; Boy Scouts is not about that and communists are after them because like feminists they cannot allow men who are straight and not devoted to the worship of the state a place to breed and foment contempt (however natural and sanity filled) to exist without forced oversight.
Alright; so now what are we going to do about it?
@El Bastardo
Well, if I were them I’d start by revoking Barack Obama’s honorary headship of the organization. That would make quite a statement.
My comment can’t compare to so many excellent comments here, but don’t we neglect and abuse our little boys (our greatest asset) enough, without thoughtlessly and recklessly using them as tools to placate special (privileged) interest groups? They destroy men and they destroy potential men. They destroy anything and anybody who doesn’t fit their twisted ideology.
What kind of future do we have with fems, fags and dems in charge of our country?
Just another sign of a societal breakdown.
Well, Welmer, you’ve been known to stick up for homosexual males, so I don’t see why you’re seemingly on the side of the Scouts here. After all, why should the Scouts deny homosexual males their right to be Scout leaders, and have overnight camps with adolescent boys? Wouldn’t they be intolerant, and thus violate that sacrosanct ideal known as “equality”?
If you’re not going to call homosexuality for what it is — i.e., perversion — then you really have no business criticizing the push to force the Scouts to allow homosexuals in their ranks.
So, say I wrote that it would be a bad idea to have high school boys and girls take showers together. Would I then have to call heterosexual desire perversion? That makes no sense at all.
Whether you think homosexuality is perversion or not is up to you. It’s perfectly legitimate to feel that way about the practice, and natural for heterosexual men. However, as long as it doesn’t intrude on my space, I don’t see why I must to condemn it. Quite frankly, I’d far prefer it weren’t my business at all, but these days it has been thrust upon us. Therein lies the problem, IMO.
So, rather than call homosexuals names like “pervert” or “faggot,” I’d simply tell them: “keep it to yourself.”
“There is a real issue with having gay adult men with adolescent boys.”
The gay ban is not anything about adult gay men in the scouts. This is a deliberate, dishonest misdirection. They gay ban is about gay boys not being allowed in the scouts, because they are gay.
The reason for the gay ban is that teh ghey makes baby jesus cry. Now, if people want to believe that and throw gay children out of their private club for that reason, then fine. But the may not receive tax dollars while doing so.
That’s the issue.
Well then why isn’t there a scout ban on Jews, Muslims or Buddhists? The Boy Scouts are not a Christian organization, despite the fact that most Boy Scouts are Christian (most children born in the US are still Christian).
As for the supposed tax dollars they receive, be serious. Do you mean that they make use of public parks and the like? Or drive on public highways?
So much common sense in this.
I’m an atheist but I have no problem reciting the pledge of allegiance which includes the words “under God.” I know those two words are important to many and it does me no harm to say them. I’m OK with this even though I know the pledge as originally written contained no reference to God, who was added in 1954.
Tolerance of different viewpoints is the basis of a civil society. But that’s no longer good enough. The majority must now be force-fed the values of a dizzying array of minority groups.
This is somewhat related. I decided it was well past time to get a carry permit in my very Blue state. In many towns in my state – including mine – an unrestricted permit is not automatically issued. So part of the brief safety course was a discussion of how to word your description of your need to carry so your permit will be approved by your local police chief. The instructor mentioned as a throwaway that this was not a problem for the handful of women in the class as women are always issued unrestricted Class A permits. Men, on the other hand, have to be very careful about how they word their application. The unspoken implication was that teh wimmenz need to carry to protect themselves against the ebil menz. I thought that was interesting and yet another example of subtle gender bias in favor of women.
@W.F. Price
“So, rather than call homosexuals names like “pervert” or “faggot,” I’d simply tell them: “keep it to yourself.”
———-
Ahhh, but the days of sanity, common sense and civil discourse are long past. We can dance around the issue but the fact is a minute percentage of the population does the lions share of the molestations as well as the majority of serial killers. The sickness lies within.
Rules for radicals is the name of the game in the present day. The mass media and politicians scream to high heaven about any perverse activity amongst Christian assemblies or the boy scouts, whilst simultaneously screaming to fill the ranks of those same organisation with gays to increase the likelyhood of foul play.
No federal funding for the boy scouts and woe to any organisation/company that donates to them. That organisation/company gets blackballed. All the while the heavily diverse/inclusive girl scouts is awash in federal funding. Special laws and parades for gays. The mass media portrays gays as always good and wholesome and the straight men who disagree as evil, backward and dastardly.
Our forefathers quite rightly saw the perils of a monsterous government controlled by the private international bankers as the greatest threat to our freedoms. And they were right. We claim a seperation of church and state yet the state dictates our morals and teaches those morals to our children in state run schools. And all the while the unelected media mouthpiece confirms the righteousness of every social regression. Good is now evil and evil is good. What was once right is now wrong and wrong has become right.
Really strange comments . You don’t have gay men as scout leaders period. I think it is cruel and wrong and always have that the gays and feminist have spent so much effort trying to destroy the boy scouts. And now they have mein fuhrer on their case.
IMHO
A faggot is a homosexual who pushes himself on people who are not homosexual and/or disapprove of homosexuality, especially the vulnerable (children); behaves intentionally and openly feminine in public (gay pride parade); a homosexual who’s behavior heteros find repulsive.
A homosexual generally keeps his sexual preference to himself and/or others of his own sexual preference and doesn’t force the gov’t to push his preferences, in one way or another, on those who disapprove of it.
And, of course, a homosexual who has political power and is working on pushing his agenda on the populace is a fu***** faggot. We let that happen with Feminism, now look where we are.
This whole “controversy” is nothing more than yet another effort by the Left to corrupt and destroy an organization that teaches values which interfere with global communism. The whole homosexual “rights” movement is just a tool in the service of that purpose.
Think about it – the very concept of “homosexual rights” is ludicrous because any homosexual has, by default, the same rights as any other citizen of which ever country they reside. It is only when they engage OPENLY in a particular sexual behavior and have that behavior rejected or disapproved of that any conflict arises.
The push for “homosexual rights” is really just a push to force normalization and acceptance of homosexual behavior, at gunpoint, on the rest of the population, and I say “at gunpoint” because when the government forces you to do ANYTHING it is inevitably at the point of a gun (resist the dictates of the government and see how long it takes for a gun to be pointed at you). Therefore, if it is legally codified that homosexuality is “normal” and “protected”, then the full force of the government (gunpoint) is used to make you accept that behavior.
Meanwhile, acceptance of homosexual behavior as “normal” necessarily diminishes the importance of heterosexual behaviors, i.e. marriage, nuclear family, gender roles, etc. Once one accepts an obviously disordered behavior as every bit as worthwhile as proper behavior (proper in the sense that things are functioning as they were designed) then, immediately, the very concept of proper functioning disappears and it becomes a free-for-all.
How can the young people of today ever have a chance at enjoying healthy, productive relationships when nothing is “normal” anymore? When they have absolutely no guidelines or blueprints for how to go about having a healthy relationship? One of the main themes of the Manosphere is how broken and wretched the whole dating/marriage effort has become, and there appears to be a consensus that the main culprit is indoctrination with feminist ideals – that women should be free to whore around until 30, that no women should be shamed as a slut no matter how slutty she is, that women should be “strong” and “independent”, that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.
What are these feminist ideals if not an insertion of disordered behavior into what used to be a very ordered foundational institution of humanity? Thousands of generations of human beings – men and women – arrived at the mating rules and roles in order to promote the greatest success and satisfaction for all, and within 50 years or so, feminists destroyed ALL OF THAT, and now we are in complete chaos to the point where women are ruining themselves with depression and disease and men have lost faith in the system to where they are either gaming it or dropping out, leaving the entire thing to die.
How much worse, then, will it be to normalize a disordered behavior like homosexuality and force that upon what remains of our society? And make no mistake, we have few organizations left which promote healthy attitudes and growth of the spirit, especially for men and boys. The Boy Scouts are trying to remain one of those organizations, but the Leftists are doing their DAMNEDEST to corrupt and ruin them as they have everything else they’ve touched.
And why would they be interested in destroying these organizations and institutions? Because they imagine that, out of the resulting chaos and destruction, they will bring about the New World Order which will consist of global communism with a one-world government carefully planning everyone’s lives down to the microsecond. The leftwing proles imagine that it will be an egalitarian paradise, but the leftwing elites know it will just be them ruling the world with an iron fist.
Amerikwa is turning into a real version of The Onion—reverse surrealism. I don’t see why anyone would pay for “entertainment” — a walk through the nearest urban food market is enough to make one gag/gasp. It’s turned into a freak show, except that no entrance fee is required, but leave your sanity at the door.
This is very relevant to this post.
Some people suggested that gay people are doing this to force people to accept their “lifestyle”. However, I don’t think that is the case. Because most gay people don’t care what straight people are think of them. I think that people should look for other reasons. I think that the way gay people bully their opponents goes further than forcing people accept their beliefs.
(Claimer: This is from personal experience. So this point of view doesn’t cover every single person out there) I think that gay people do some of the things they do, because of how they were treated going up. Most pre-homosexual children were the ones that were picked on and isolated by their peers. This often leads kidsm feeling powerless and they don’t matter. So growing up, most of the children have this rage inside them. This rage is the kinda of rage that want to make other people pay for how they were treated. And if their relationship with their parents isn’t a healthy one, it can make this rage worst.
I think that some gay people are like the nerds that abuse their co-workers because they bullied by his peers growing up . I think that some,not most, gay people have this same rage. But instead of abusing their co-workers, they’re using their political capital to make the system that gave them hell pay. They want to destroy the system because they view as something like a nightmare. The system never benefited them or treated them with respect. So why should they give the system the very thing they never received.
So it’s not that they want to force other people to accept their lifestyle. It’s just that they want revenge. In my circle of friends(Claimer: This is from personal experience. So this point of view doesn’t cover every single person out there.t), I noticed the difference between the gays that were treated well growing up and the ones that weren’t. The gays that were treated well seem to be somewhat mellow and mainstream. Not all, but most. And the ones that outcasted seem to be somewhat hostile underneath their outer demeanor.
Remember when the Left made a push for priests and nuns to be able to be openly homosexual?
The child sexual abuse scandals put an end to that. Once the former altar boys started testifying, the Left quietly dropped the pro-homosexuality campaign.
Now the Left wants to trap the Scouts between Scylla and Charybdis by either labelling them as a “hate group” for not admitting openly gay members or else by lambasting them as an organization of pedophiles when the inevitable man-boy sex occurs between homosexual members of the Scouts.
“Hate group” or “the new NAMBLA” – those are the two choices that are going to be left open to the Boy Scouts. Both are unfair mischaracterizations, but since when has that stopped the Left?
The Left also knows that churches sponsor most troops, so if they can force a rift between say, the Mormon church and the Boy Scouts over admitting gays, that would be a perfect “divide and conquer” strategy for them.
Why aren’t the Gay Rights activists pushing for inclusion in the Girl Scouts? Wouldn’t they be just as comfortable with lesbians, or gay men for that matter? Would girls feel “icky” sleeping next to another girl that might be attracted to them sexually?
This is nothing but the Progressive’s ongoing war against men and boys. The Girl Scouts is nothing more than a feminist youth organization…so our media won’t touch them.
Sure, let gays in the Boy Scouts… look what that’s done for priests and altarboys over the last 30 years.
Heck, the Democrats have the Progressive Youth… I mean, FEMAcorps with their nice blue shirts and rallies already.
Girls scouts are probably already lesbobos (thanks uncle bern)
Sad. I have been a Scout in Europe and Latin America. I don’t know about US Boy Scouts but my experience is that this is one of the few movements that cherishes and promotes old-fashioned values. A huge force for the good.
Seeing the movement hijacked by political correctness to further the leftist agenda… men, that’s really sad.
Keyster, the Girl Scouts accepted “out” lesbians as leaders 20 or so years ago. The homosexual lobby won that pretty much without a fight, although some number of women did leave the organization in protest.
Consider the pushy homosexual as a feminized male, insisting that “I must be included in everything“, just like the 2nd wave feminists of the 1970′s and 1980′s.
You are drawing a false analogy. Your question implies no deep difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality.
Humanity springs from heterosexual desire, without which families, communities, cultures, and virtues could not exist. Heterosexuality implies boundaries and standards governing male-female relations — that is why no normal heterosexual would even think of allowing something so bizarre as allowing high school boys and girls to shower together. The heterosexual instinct would abhor it.
Homosexuality OTOH is, by nature, the absence of boundaries and standards. It creates nothing. At its root is licentiousness. Allowing boys and girls to shower together, or allowing men and pre-pubescent boys to do the same, does not run against the homosexual instinct. Not surprisingly, studies have shown a strong correlation between male homosexuality and child sexual abuse.
To answer your original question: no, but then high school should not be co-educational IMO.
Actually, having high school boys and girls share toilet/shower facilities would be the next logical step in a co-ed high school — as co-education itself is gender equality. Placing boys and girls in sex-segregated high schools would render your question moot.
Communist International must destroy:
-nation
-race
-religion
-family
…all these things that allow people to form an identity.
Some really good comments on this thread. I often wonder if the MRM becoming more mainstream and politically powerful might come about by being a voice for fathers and adults against perversion.
I firmly believe that a significant and permanent majority of the population opposes the madness of the last several years that gays have supported and pushed. As men, and as leaders, we should be speaking out against things that are intrinsically wrong and harmful.
I think that anyone who makes their sexual preference known publicly should be excluded from any serious role in society. Keep your private affairs private if you want to be considered an adult, please.
I think homosexuality is being used as a wedge interest to destroy the MRM. Really, all it would take is a few homosexual feminist leaning individuals to parade around as MRA, and act as enforcers for the gay agenda. Constantly trying to herd people into accepting that which is unacceptable. Look at MRA websites that are pro-gay: They tend to have a high degree of “shine”, a little bit of substances-less hysteria to try and pass as MRA, but ultimately only the same few faces wondering why they get so many hits but no stays.