I have an occasional drink myself. But I would object if my hometown booted an organization out of a public facility because they require their members to abstain from alcohol. It's up to the Scouts or any other organization to make those decisions for themselves. BTW, there's a difference between drinking and alcoholism, just as there's a difference between heterosexuality and promiscuity.
And yet homosexual behavior can be found in all kinds of animals.
Animals react to stimuli, and sometimes stimuli can trigger a false reaction. For example, when a dog "humps" your leg, he isn't trying to engage in bestiality, and it would be absurd to argue that bestiality was natural on the basis of that. In any event, what possible natural reason could there be for a male inserting his organ into another male's rear opening? Whether animal or human?
Anal sex spreads diseases more than vaginal sex, it's true. But not all gays have anal sex, while many heterosexuals do.
How many heterosexual males are likely to desire anal sex with a boy, as opposed to homosexual males? That's the relavent issue vis-a-vis the Scouts.
Because heterosexuals never seduce people, right?
I don't have the stats handy right now, but do some research. You'd be amazed how many homosexuals report that they were "introduced" to sex as a minor by an older person.
In addition, heterosexuality is natural and examples of it abound every day. The reproductive ablility of heterosexuality is obvious every day. Every Boy Scout came into being because of heterosexuality. Homosexuality, in contrast, must constantly propagandize because nothing in the natural world would lead one to it. This is why homosexuals, when they get political clout, immediately move to try to change school curricula, as in California.
Lots of things don't produce offspring. In fact, I can only think of one thing that does. Doesn't mean the rest of them are bad.
God and/or nature (take your pick) provides us with two sexes, who are naturally opposites, and who can bond to reproduce. Homosexuals can't do that....EVER....because there is no way for them to naturally bond in the blessed act of creating a new human being.
You don't actually know many gay people, do you?
Not a whole lot, but some.
Agreed.
just as there's a difference between heterosexuality and promiscuity.
And there's a difference between homosexuality and promiscuity, too.
In any event, what possible natural reason could there be for a male inserting his organ into another male's rear opening? Whether animal or human?
It feels good?
How many heterosexual males are likely to desire anal sex with a boy, as opposed to homosexual males? That's the relavent issue vis-a-vis the Scouts.
And the scouts are entitled to ban gay scoutleaders. But it's certain acts practiced by both gays and straights that are more likely to spread disease, not homosexuality in and of itself. Your position was that homsexuality was bad because it spread disease.
You'd be amazed how many homosexuals report that they were "introduced" to sex as a minor by an older person.
I can say the same of heterosexuals. There's usually someone experienced leading someone inexperienced.
God and/or nature (take your pick) provides us with two sexes, who are naturally opposites, and who can bond to reproduce.
I guess I just don't see reproduction as the end-all and be-all of human existence.
Not a whole lot, but some.
Like I said, I know lots, and I've never seen that gynophobic behavior you describe. I've seen far more misogyny from straight men.