Oh nos tEH Gayz are in the Scouts!!!

Boy Scouts? In the immortal words of Jeff Spicoli... "Those guys are fags!"

Same thing with the Girl Scouts. Although when they pushed the tagalongs at my local supermarket recently I told the leafer there that since I don't support the homosexual agenda they are promoting, I would not be buying their cookies.

Why bother?

Your stance on this is irrelevant and becoming more so every day.

You're a dickbag.

You seem to think there is some reason to be scared of not treating homosexuals like lepers, so the label sticks.

And that's what's wrong with people like you. You have a problem with others taking any position that is in conflict with your own. I didn't abuse the person. I simply told them why I would no longer support the girl scouts organization. Too bad though, they are good cookies.

Whatever makes you sleep better at night. Dickbag.

Too high.

And, as usual, some people just don't get that homosexuality is no more equivalent to pedophilia than heterosexuality is.

Does this mean they'll be changing the "morally straight" line in the Scout Oath?

The desperation in your attempt to be "shocking" is perhaps more obvious than you realize.

We all know you are not part of that crowd (unless you've got saved and had an epiphany?) so...troll fail.

That's not a number, or even a range.

Not easy to find anything, but...

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

That's pretty fuckin' disturbing. I'd add more at this point, but the whole phenomenon is revolting, and I'd like to articulate the point based on this number in the clearest way possible, so I'm going to take some time to sort the statement in accordance with that objective.

Why would you think that?

You don't seem very tolerant of opposing views. Another example of not walking the walk.

you dislike my bigotry, so you're a bigot!

Actually, yeah. That is how it is. TLS is a bigoted fuckball, but there is no significant difference between hating -- or even merely disparaging -- somebody for not fucking the way one approves of and hating somebody for not holding the opinions one approves of. In principle, it is the same fucking thing.

"You're a shitty human being for fucking somebody you shouldn't!" = "You're a shitty human being for thinking something you shouldn't!"

I'm not some hippie, I don't give a fuck about tolerating your backwards viewpoint.

Because, as you love to point out, I'm not a nice guy.

Here's my measure:

You're a shitting human being for doing, or contributing to, things that harm innocent others.

Being a bigot tends to contribute to a society being harmful to the target. Fucking the "wrong" gender, in principle, has no such downside.

:fuckoff:

All they've managed to do is piss of their religious sponsors who are now deciding whether or not to pull their support. Might as well go full bore and allow it for adults so that at least one side is happy and then MAYBE that will make up for the loss. Either go all the way or don't bother.

Flashlight = Shepherd IMHO.

None of us will be surprised when Nova 2.0 appears.

That's not exactly a refutation of my point. In fact, it's pretty close to a concession of it.

In your ideal world, there would be no shitty human beings.
Not because there aren't shitty human beings, but because we're in some weird non-judgmental fluffy hippie la-la land of denial.

Come on, humans don't tick that way.
We have to make value judgments to function.
They just have to be properly informed ones.

You know this.
You don't need it explained.
You're a goofball, not retarded.

Hence the spanking.

Um... what?! No, man. We are all shitty human beings about something. You pick any random human being, there's something that human being will be shitty about.

What I'm advocating here is that people come to understand this -- about everybody, including themselves -- and then each of us try to restrain ourselves when it comes to whatever the object of our own personal shitty-ness happens to be. And, while we're at it, recognize that the shitty-ness of others does not give us any particular special license to be shitty.

Everybody is a bigot about something. That's a fact. TLS is a bigot toward homosexuals. And lo and behold, he brings out bigotry toward traditionalists from other people.

"But! But! He's got it coming!" is the excuse. Well, newsflash: He probably thinks the objects of his scorn and derision have "got it coming!" too. There's no difference.

Yeah, there is.
He's wrong.

You think? I wouldn't be so sure. Admittedly, the lamestream media's hysterical coverage of all things homosexual certainly would lead the casual observer to believe the gayz are taking over.

But the vast majority of Americans have not been swayed. And the younger generation may pay more lip service to the GLAAD-approved homosexual agenda, but that doesn't mean they want gay kids any more than their parents did.

I just find it so interesting that the membership of a web site that prides itself on it's reputation for free-thinking would be such dutiful soldiers marching to GLAAD's drumbeat. You're as much a slave to this agenda as any bible-thumping conservative fundie.

If General Chang / Shepherd could metamorphose into Nova the cross-dressing transvestite, is it so hard to contemplate my opinion on this issue may have evolved?

What I'm paying attention to is the homosexual sociopolitical agenda that's been nurtured and pushed by homosexual activists for decades. As I opined in another thread, we're now seeing those efforts come to full fruition.

You ever ask yourself why they targeted the Boy Scouts? Why was it so important to the homosexual activists to flip this organization to the homo side?

If GLAAD wanted to create a scouting organization that espoused the values they endorse, they could have done so at any time. Why didn't they? Could it be they knew no parent in their right mind would send their kid to GLAAD camp? So instead, they chose the trojan horse strategy - infiltrate the Boy Scouts.

The Scouts could have ended this long ago by coming out fighting. They could have used the Washington Redskins tactic when asked if they would ever change their team name?

"Never." That was the response of the Redskins. And it should have been the response of the Scouts. Simple, to the point, unequivocal.