Comments on: Takei Reacts to Boy Scouts Announcement

By: Jerry Batista

Jerry Batista — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 22:01:00 +0000

The Mormon church comprises a high number of troops. The Mormon church is also set up to move their kids to their own version of scouts should the BSA ever do something they don’t approve of. The LDS chokehold on the Boy Scouts of America has been going on for roughly 30 years now.

All of that money from the Mormon troops would be lost if BSA goes against LDS ideals. Thus, the BSA executives will always kowtow to Mormon religious practice. Tadaa!

By: nevilleross

nevilleross — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 22:33:00 +0000

The Girls Scouts is inclusive, the Boy Scouts isn’t. You’ve got it all wrong.

By: Kang the Unbalanced

Kang the Unbalanced — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:18:00 +0000

Another bigot who deliberately equates homosexual with paedophile, and can’t possibly conceive of homosexuals as being anything other than sex-crazed fiends.

By: Kang the Unbalanced

Kang the Unbalanced — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:17:00 +0000

Shitskin apparently prefers to ignore the facts in favor of base titillation.

By: Guest

Guest — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 01:21:00 +0000

In the 60s, he couldn’t realistically have had a proper long-term relationship (like the one he’s been in for many years now) because of the social structure perpetrated by bigots like yourselves. His career would have been at risk, for one thing. Anonymity was at times necessary. When he tries to provide perspective on this period while being interviewed about it decades later, you tune in and then claim he is trying to “rub it in the faces of you and me.” Ridiculous.

“Which is it, George? Do you want to have sex with hundreds of anonymous men or do you want to settle down with one?”

Obviously it is the second, which is what he has done since it became feasible.

By: Skitshin

Skitshin — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 15:18:00 +0000

It’s fascinating and illuminating in certain respects if you choose to pay attention. Out of one side of his mouth he talks about how he just wants the same rights as any straight person has (a fallacious argument–he has the same rights to marry a woman as any straight does–but a convincing one to some people), but out of the other side of his mouth he talks about all the anonymous sex he has. Which is it, George? Do you want to have sex with hundreds of anonymous men or do you want to settle down with one?

The answer is, for Takai and for all gay men, both. The CDC actually had to redefine their strata with respect to the distribution of the total number of lifetime sexual partners that gay men have engaged with–and it makes sense why when you consider that the median is in the hundreds.

But gays aren’t happy to simply indulge their perversions privately. They have to rub it in the faces of you and me and all normal people by uprooting every institution and tradition that might stand in their paths.

By: Skitshin

Skitshin — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 15:09:00 +0000

Nor they, I suspect, you.

By: Cdbutler1204

Cdbutler1204 — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 13:29:00 +0000

Takei needs to let this one go!

He spoke at a Star Trek Convention here in Nashville last month alongside many other established Star Trek actors. All of them were highly entertaining and told funny stories…..but Takei came to give a serious political speech about gay marriage. That was his right, and I had a right not to listen, but I went to have a good time, not for political speeches.

And if he wants gay marriage legalized so he and his bf can “have dignity,” then why does he go on Howard Stern and eagerly tell stories about having sex with several anonymous men when he was younger, with no sense of shame whatsoever?

It doesn’t sound like dignity is what he really wants!

By: Skitshin

Skitshin — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:56:00 +0000

They won’t be happy until they’ve infected every organization with their diseased perversions. The fact that it would give gays easy access to young boys and young men makes the BSA the ultimate prize.

By: Kang the Unbalanced

Kang the Unbalanced — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:28:00 +0000

I’m not going to hate on you, because I don’t hate you. I disagree with you.
The BSA’s current stated position is, no one should be openly gay in BSA. This infers an equivalent policy to “Don’t ask, don’t tell”. While DADT seemed like good idea on the surface of it, there are good reasons why it failed as a policy.
However, in BSA, the “don’t ask” is not part of the policy; the question is being asked. This forces people who support scouting and want to contribute, and kids who want to be scouts, to lie: to conceal a significant part of who they are.
this goes against two key tenets of scouting.
1) Honesty.
2) Self esteem, which if I’m not mistaken is one of the reasons BSA was founded in the first place.
The position the BSA is taking reinforces a stance that many groups have taken before: that gay people are bad or are not good enough, have no place in society, and should hide who they are. I submit that this is a harmful message to send to adults, let alone children. I also submit that this message is still harmful whether there are still gay people left in the BSA, or not.
I do agree that private organizations should have the right to say who they will and will not admit. I also agree that people have the right to be upset about it, even to protest it. If enough people are outraged, the organization may want to reconsider their policies– but they should not be required to. The BSA should be free to evaluate for themselves whether they want to adapt to changes in modern society, or fade into irrelevance and obscurity. As much good as the BSA has done, (being another former Scout,) I sincerely hope they choose to adapt.
One final point. I have never agreed with the philosophy of “just walk away”. I find that it is often a phrase used to persuade people that they cannot or should not fight, when in fact they can and they should. I’m sincerely hoping that that is not what you intended.