Focus on the Family Will Keep your Kid from Being Gay

Well, hopefully you'll believe the U.S. government, specifically the General Accounting Office: U.S. GAO - Page not foundThey found 1049 laws in the US Code that confer privledges or status contingent on marital status. You didn't answer the question. Why would gay couples with children want to discredit social conservatives?

Incisive. Nope. I think the kids should be able to sing anything they want: would you mind if she sang raunchy burlesque or a call to prayers? Nope. I think religious art is cool. I think we should have Christian displays, Islamic displays, Jewish displays, Hindu displays, shaman displays, Jain displays, etc. But if any religious displays are banned, all should be banned. Would a Wicca or Satanist display be okay with you? Don't smoke anything. Who's doing the demonizing here? Nope, not me: you should indeed have looked. But why bother with verifying facts when you think you have a lock on truth? Don't have a clue what you're talking about. Would the Terminator do a thing like that? My earliest crowd was an integrated Boy Scout troop in the late 50s/early 60s, because our Scoutmaster was a brave man of conscience--do you think Dobson would rock that kind of boat for justice? I don't.We were turned away from regional Jamborees because of the brothers. We had to gather together to walk to the church en masse for meetings because the 'good Christian' kids--if not their parents-- would otherwise beat up the brothers. We had gay scouts. I learned real lessons of tolerance and the real face of bigotry and hatred in those days: it looked sanctimonious and self-righteous. Like Dobson.No one can demand to be Scoutmaster if the kids and parents don't trust and support them--doesn't work. If someone tried to force an unwanted Scoutmaster on a troop, that was mistaken and morally wrong. On the other hand, if a popular and successful Scoutmaster was outed and chased off for that reason alone, that was mistaken and morally wrong.I reached Life Scout (one step shy of Eagle), God and Country, and a ton of merit badge I keep in the same box as my Army medals.There are people who agree with me on some things and not on others; that is true of everyone.I condemn Dobson based on his actions and statements on the record: he and his corporation seek to impose their religious views on others--that is a matter of record, which is why you made no serious effort to refute the assertion.Instead, you smear me with strawman guilt by ssociation.Very Dobsonian of you.

I didn't defend against your accusation because you offerred no specifics.In terms of racial integration, there was one group always way ahead of the rest, even when the Left were Social Darwinians and hard-core racists 100+ years ago, and that group were the small Pentacostal Holiness churches in the south.Duval did a bang up job portraying that group in the movie, The Apostle, which was very accurate. Unfortunately, it was also somewhat accurate in the sexual sin arena as well, which has been a problem in the past 30 years or so in those denominations.As far as Dobson, I have no idea if he was a racist back then. He's old enough to remember segregation.Do you have any evidence he was a racist?

Crash, your posts are baseless and never on target to the discussion. First off, you ignored every major point I have made, and then insinuate I think gay couples are for gay marriage as some sort of axe to grind, which has never been my claim, ever.Take the time to read someone else's posts, and then get back to me with substantive posts, and we can talk.If not, don't be surprised if I ignore you. Totally wrong.If you would read your own link, you would see that it does not state there are 1049 laws conferring benefits, nor that there are over 1000 benefits. The reference is to a mere word search where the word "marriage" is mentioned. Considering often these laws have detrimental effects such as with the IRS and debt, it could just as easily be argued, based on your logic, that there are 1049 penalties for being married.There is just no claim to a thousand marital benefits in the link, and if there were, I would like to know what they are.Since you cannot even name one, I have to assume that you realize you are wrong and just cannot admit it due to pride.This message has been edited by randman, 08-21-2005 03:22 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 08-21-2005 03:24 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 08-21-2005 03:30 PM

The Boy Scouts officially disagree with you and state they do have a rule banning homosexuals from being scout-masters. http://www.scouting.org/media/press/000628/index.htmlThe fact you deny even a basic fact in the debate shows either your insincerety or just plain ignorance. You can decide which?This message has been edited by randman, 08-21-2005 03:41 PM

I saw this and had to respond.Sorry crash but you are wrong here.Boy Scouts does in fact discriminate against gay scouts and leaders. They have the same legal basis to do so as they do to keep out atheists: they are a private organization and can set their standards for membership.As not only a Scout, the son of a Scout, the father of a Scout, and a (retired) Scoutmaster,but as an (ex) Assistant District Commissioner who was involved directly with dealing with this issue at the District level, I know that, while individual troops can have some lax standards (troops are like franchises and are run by the sponsoring organization and not directly by the districts), that any time information is provided to the district or the council that a scout or leader is gay, their membership is terminated.It is not a position that I personally hold, but one I respected, reluctantly, as a member of the organisation.This also happens for any legal infraction of significance. And for any leader exibiting {boy scout standard} immoral behavior (sexual behavior, drinking, etc). In fact it is policy that husband and wife sleep in separate tents on campouts they both attend.Congratulations on your eagle, btw. and ... (ex ADC talking here ...) have you thought of becoming a Unit Commissioner?{{edited to change subtitle}}This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*21*2005 04:38 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

To the contrary; in at least three posts now you've asserted that the goal of gay marriage proponents is to stick it to social conservatives, not argue for the well-being of gay parents and couples.What you haven't done is give us any indication whatsoever why we should believe you. We're supposed to believe that gay parents struggling to raise children absent the protection of the state are more interested in sticking it to people like you than in their own plight? Why should we accept something so ludicrous? I've addressed every single relevant point that you've made. Since you apparently can't respond to my rebuttals, it's clear this discussion is at an end, anyway. But first let me correct your spectacular misunderstanding of the document I presented you. You did read it, right? Like, beyond the first three sentences? My guess is that you got about this far in the document:

quote:

---

The Defense of Marriage Act,1 which became law on September 21 of last year, defines
"marriage" as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife";
similarly it defines "spouse" as referring "only to a person of the opposite sex who is a
husband or a wife." Because the Act makes both definitions apply "in determining the
meaning of any Act of Congress," it potentially affects the interpretation of a wide variety
of federal laws in which marital status is a factor.

​

In connection with the enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act, you asked us, in your
September 5, 1996, letter, to identify federal laws in which benefits, rights, and privileges
are contingent on marital status. Your staff agreed that we should identify more generally
all those laws in the United States Code in which marital status is a factor, even though
some of these laws may not directly create benefits, rights, or privileges.

​

To find laws that meet these criteria, we conducted searches for various words or word
stems ("marr," "spouse," "widow," etc.), chosen to elicit marital status, in several electronic
databases that contain the text of federal laws.

---

On the other hand, had you kept reading, you would have seen this:

quote:

---

From the collection of laws in the United
States Code that we found through those searches, we eliminated (1) laws that included
one or more of our search terms but that were not relevant to your request2 and (2) as
agreed with your staff, any laws enacted after the Defense of Marriage Act. The result is a collection of 1049 federal laws classified to the United States Code in which marital status
is a factor.

---

Federal laws in which privledge or status is conferred on the married. Try to read a little closer next time.

quote:

---

In connection with the enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act, you asked us, in your
September 5, 1996, letter, to identify federal laws in which benefits, rights, and privileges
are contingent on marital status.

---

Try reading the document, then.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-21-2005 06:59 PM

The rule is unenforcable. Thus, it does not exist. You can believe a former Scout or I guess you can call me a liar. It's your choice.

Look, I gotta say, all that stuff comes right out of left field. In all my years of scouting as both a scout and briefly an adult volunteer, absolutely none of the Scout literature, bylines, or rules forbade gay scouts or leaders.If there is such a rule then it was certainly some kind of unspoken rule, and rarely applied. I was in troops and councils with gay and girl Boy Scouts. I'm thinking about it now, for sure. Somebody needs to get in and start changing that rule.

That was part of my thinking. If nothing else, one segment at a time. At least I got them to accept a Deist in the midst of the Dutch Reform Christian Kingdom

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Are you under the mistaken impression that the majority of gay marriage proponents are gay couples? While there are probably a good number of gay couples favoring gay marriage, they are not the majority pushing for it.Maybe this is like how you insisted erroneously that the Washington Post is liberal or that there are at least 1000 benefits conferred on married people by the federal gov.LOL.You couldn't even name one, and you offered a link that named none either, and yet unlike your eventual retraction on the Wsshington Post, you still have not admitted you were wrong.Uh, crash, maybe you don't realize but laws where marital status are a factor are not the same as laws that confer benefits to married people. In fact, it could be the opposite. Marital status could create a liability in the law such as an IRS lien on one spouse's failure to pay, sometimes prior to marriage, on property owned jointly.Sorry, but you are just wrong here, just as you were the first couple of times I kept telling you the Washington Post was considered a liberal, not a conservative, paper.This message has been edited by randman, 08-21-2005 09:47 PM

Ah, randman, you can't even gloat accurately. Nice Christian sentiments, though. And another famous randman numberless numerical claim.

Well, I for one applaud your rethinking of the situation and now are agreeing that gays should be allowed to marry. That is what you are saying...correct? I mean, otherwise, you might appear to be a bit of a hypocrite Oh wait, so now it appears that maybe you feel that organizations have rights, but individuals do not.

schraf, that would accurate if you only lost the presidential election. But Democrats lost 5 seats in the House and 4 seats in the Senate, and that was with MORE Democrat incumbents! (buh bye Daschle)That is highly unusual for a party that didn't hold the presidency to lose so badly.Why did ya'll get whipped?Liberal ideas don't work and you have no values.

---

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill

Discrimination is a sin? Who am I discriminating against? Any man has the right to marry any woman, and vice versa. Noone is taking that away from homosexuals. They simply choose to (note theyWhere does the bible say that?If you mean that I: Then I guess I'm guilty.But I'm guessing you mean that I: Now, a woman is born a woman. That woman is born with her a certain color of skin. She is not born a homosexual. If her mommy was a homosexual, she would not have been born at all. It is too easy.So before you go into your spill about how homosexuals are born with their tendancies, or they have a gene that can be turned on and off with a cattle prod, let me again state that there are ex-gays that have CHOSEN to go straight, have married, and now have families.

---

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill