U2 Feedback

U2 Feedback (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/)
-   Free Your Mind Archive (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/)
-   -   City of Philadelphia Adds $199,999 to Boy Scout HQ Rent Due to Gay Ban (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/city-of-philadelphia-adds-199-999-to-boy-scout-hq-rent-due-to-gay-ban-180900.html)

phillyfan26 10-17-2007 09:13 PM

City of Philadelphia Adds $199,999 to Boy Scout HQ Rent Due to Gay Ban
 
https://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news...r_gay_ban.html

Quote:

City hikes Boy Scouts’ rent by $199,999 over gay ban

By Joseph A. Slobodzian

INQUIRER STAFF WRITER
The Boy Scouts of America's refusal to bend its rules to permit gay scouts will cost the organization's local chapter $200,000 a year if it wishes to keep its headquarters in a city-owned building on Logan Square.

Representatives of the Boy Scouts of America's Cradle of Liberty Council were notified that to remain in their 79-year-old landmark headquarters, they needed to pay the city a "fair market" rent, Fairmount Park Commission president Robert N.C. Nix said Wednesday. Currently, the rent is $1 a year.

The city decided on the rent proposal after it was unable to reach a compromise with the local scout council in talks that have gone on since May.

"Once we know what the Cradle of Liberty Boy Scouts want to do, we'll probably want to weigh in with the city about how to proceed," Nix told the park commission.

Barring a resolution, the Cradle of Liberty Council - about 64,000 scouts in Philadelphia and parts of Delaware and Montgomery Counties - must vacate the property at 22d and Winter Streets after May 31.

"It's disappointing, and it's certainly a threat," said Jeff Jubelirer, a spokesman for Cradle of Liberty Council, referring to the rent's impact on the scouts' chances of staying on the site.

Jubelirer said that $200,000 a year in rent "would have to come from programs. That's 30 new Cub Scout packs, or 800 needy kids going to our summer camp."

Nevertheless, Jubelirer said, scouting officials will ask City Solicitor Romulo L. Diaz Jr. for details on the real estate appraisals that yielded the $200,000 rent figure.

Cradle of Liberty officials have said they could not renounce the scouts' long-established policy of not opening membership to atheists or openly gay people without running afoul of their charter with the scouts' National Council.

City officials have said they could not legally rent taxpayer-owned property for a dollar a year to a private organization that discriminates.

The land belongs to the City of Philadelphia but has been leased since 1928 for that token sum to the scouts, who built the landmark Beaux Arts building.

That lease came into question only after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2000 in a New Jersey case involving an openly gay scout who was barred from serving as troop leader.

The high court in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale ruled, 5-4, that the scouts, as a private organization, have a right of "expressive association" under the First Amendment to set their own membership rules.

The scouts have long required members to swear an oath of duty to God, and their rules prohibit membership by anyone who is openly homosexual. For that reason, scouting officials initially greeted the Supreme Court's ruling as a victory.

That mood quickly evaporated, however, as local government officials around the nation began reexamining long-standing preferential relationships with scouts.

Unlike the scouts, public officials are also bound by a line of Supreme Court opinions barring taxpayer support of any group that discriminates.

In Philadelphia, officials wrestled for months for a way to let the scouts remain at their longtime headquarters.

At one point in 2005, the city and scouts seemed poised to agree on a policy statement adopted by New York scouts. That statement, while not renouncing the bars against atheist or gay members, affirmed that "prejudice, intolerance and unlawful discrimination in any form are unacceptable."

But last year, Diaz wrote Cradle of Liberty Council officials to say the suggested policy statement could not be reconciled with the city's own anti-discriminatory fair-practices ordinance.

Again, both sides began trading proposals. That ended May 31, when City Council voted 16-1 to authorize ending the lease with Cradle of Liberty Council.

The resolution was introduced unexpectedly by Councilman Darrell L. Clarke and passed, 16-1, with no debate.

Both Clarke, a Center City Democrat whose district includes the scouts building, and Diaz, a prominent member of the city's gay community, said they hoped the resolution would spur talks to resolve the dispute.

Nix said Wednesday that those talks had apparently failed, leading to the lease proposal.

melon 10-17-2007 09:36 PM

Being a "private organization" is a real bitch, isn't it?

indra 10-17-2007 09:38 PM

Good.

Canadiens1131 10-17-2007 09:57 PM

Haha good on you Philly.

dazzlingamy 10-18-2007 06:13 AM

IS this just this chapter of scouts or ALL scouts in america?

I was in scouts as a kids, and we had a gay scout troop leader (he was soooooo funny!) and i would NEVER have swore allegiance to god *coughsplutter* in fact i don't think there was one religious thing in scouts!

we just went camping, tied knots and made fires!

DaveC 10-18-2007 07:13 AM

Things like this are part of why I love Philadelphia :up:

Vincent Vega 10-18-2007 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dazzlingamy
IS this just this chapter of scouts or ALL scouts in america?

It's "Boy Scouts of America" policy, so every chapter that belongs to this association (which is the largest in the US according to wikipedia) is barring atheists and gays from being member.

This reminds me of the South Park episode that dealt with the topic. Apparently this organisation is lead by some dickheads.

I loved being with scout groups to Hungary in 1993. We got the opportunity because my father was asked to drive a bus there, and he said "Only when I can bring my family." It was Danish and German scouts, but neither religion nor sexuality was any topic there.

indra 10-18-2007 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dazzlingamy
we just went camping, tied knots and made fires!
That sounds mighty kinky! :ohmy:

:wink:

Varitek 10-18-2007 11:59 PM

Awesome!

CTU2fan 10-19-2007 08:01 AM

Agreed. While I think scouting is a good thing for boys, I have a problem with the no gays/no athiests thing.

I didn't realize that scouts couldn't be gay, I knew scout leaders had to be straight but I didn't think/know that extended to the scouts.

dazzlingamy 10-19-2007 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by indra


That sounds mighty kinky! :ohmy:

:wink:

hahahaha

come to think of it... one time we were camping, (me being the only girl in a 5 strong boy troop) we played dare double dare, and one of the boys was dared to run around the campfire with his pants around his ankles. I was might unimpressed by what i saw that night! (mind you he was 12 at the time! hahaha)

nathan1977 10-20-2007 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CTU2fan

I didn't realize that scouts couldn't be gay, I knew scout leaders had to be straight but I didn't think/know that extended to the scouts.

It doesn't. That's not true.

Irvine511 10-20-2007 10:50 AM

i think the BSA discrimiation against gays and atheists is unconscionable.

however, my first boyfriend was an Eagle Scout, so, obviously it's not closed to gay kids. i don't think.

melon 10-20-2007 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Irvine511
i think the BSA discrimiation against gays and atheists is unconscionable.

however, my first boyfriend was an Eagle Scout, so, obviously it's not closed to gay kids. i don't think.

Actually, I think it is. They forbid atheists, since they insist on belief in a higher power, and they forbid gays, since they insist that it goes against their oaths to be "morally straight" or something or the other.

Where this all gets really stupid is that, theoretically speaking, you could easily get a religious person whose denomination has absolutely nothing against homosexuality at all, since the Scouts don't demand everyone be Christian. However, as usual, it seems like "morality" is defined by (*shock* :rolleyes: ) a group of conservative Christians. I guess everyone else's beliefs don't count.

BrownEyedBoy 10-20-2007 11:16 PM

I think that the Boy Scouts organization already gets a lot of crap from everyone to have be forced to do something like that. It's a delicate subject, really, because, like in the army, you do get to spend a lot of time with the other boys in your troop. :shrug:

dazzlingamy 10-21-2007 06:41 AM

so what? im sick and tired of people acting like men are just pathetic can't keep it in their pants type of people. Oh women can't be in special ops because they're around men so much that all the emn will do is wanna screw em, and not keep their mind on the job
oh you can't wear a short skirt, or top cause men will get all in a tizz and attack you
oh you can't be gay and go camping with other guys because you'll start getting all brokeback mountain on them
oh you can't be on a team with guys when your a homo because everytime you have a shower with them, you want to jump all there asses.

its such utter bullshit. This belief that men are all predators and can't keep it in their pants to EXCLUDE people from things is so fucking pathetic.

MrsSpringsteen 10-21-2007 08:42 AM

^:rockon: I don't get how some of those men can't see that it makes them look like they think so poorly of their gender. It's actually rather fascinating...

melon 10-21-2007 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dazzlingamy
its such utter bullshit. This belief that men are all predators and can't keep it in their pants to EXCLUDE people from things is so fucking pathetic.
The irony about homophobia, really, is that it's truly "misandric" in nature. All those archetypes about straight men being nothing but stupid, fat, sex-obsessed, irresponsible slobs...well, gosh, two (gay) men together must mean that we'll have twice the stupidity, obesity, sex-obsession, and irresponsibility!

Varitek 10-21-2007 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dazzlingamy
so what? im sick and tired of people acting like men are just pathetic can't keep it in their pants type of people. Oh women can't be in special ops because they're around men so much that all the emn will do is wanna screw em, and not keep their mind on the job
oh you can't wear a short skirt, or top cause men will get all in a tizz and attack you
oh you can't be gay and go camping with other guys because you'll start getting all brokeback mountain on them
oh you can't be on a team with guys when your a homo because everytime you have a shower with them, you want to jump all there asses.

its such utter bullshit. This belief that men are all predators and can't keep it in their pants to EXCLUDE people from things is so fucking pathetic.

:love: :love:

Great rant!

MadelynIris 10-21-2007 11:30 AM

You know there are some college fraternities, and other social organizations that also require members to declare a belief in "God".

Curious if we should enact laws or come up with other creative ways for these groups to change.

Is there a point when clubs can or can't dictate certain membership criteria?

melon 10-21-2007 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MadelynIris
You know there are some college fraternities, and other social organizations that also require members to declare a belief in "God".

Curious if we should enact laws or come up with other creative ways for these groups to change.

Is there a point when clubs can or can't dictate certain membership criteria?

I think that this issue is more complicated than it seems. For one, private organizations are completely free to discriminate in its membership for any reason, it seems. This is the criteria, for instance, that allows the KKK to exist legally.

On the other hand, whether formally or informally, certain organizations have long existed under the perception of "inclusion," and, as such, governments often feel comfortable in giving them benefits or breaks that, while remaining private, gives these organizations a kind of de facto "public" status--i.e., United Way, Big Brothers & Big Sisters, etc.

The Scouts used to exist under this same kind of status--private, but de facto public--because of the goodwill it generated. Nonetheless, who feels "good" about granting public money and favors to an organization that literally fought its way to the Supreme Court for the arbitrary right to exclude atheists and homosexuals?

Nobody does. And now the Scouts are going to learn the consequences of expending its goodwill, and will have to operate like any other ordinary "private organization." In essence, by fighting for its right to discriminate--as accorded to any private organization--it basically ceded its "quasi-public" status in the process.

As I stated before, for an organization that does not discriminate against non-Christian theists--they officially recognize all kind of obscure religions that few people have heard of (and it was where I first read the word "Zoroastrianism," for instance)--it makes little practical sense to suddenly define "morality" by conservative Christian definitions. Some of these same religions that the Scouts recognize have zero problems with homosexuality. Essentially, on this point, that makes them a complete hypocrite on the issue of their own religious diversity policies.

As for banning atheists, again, it seems rather silly. It may very well be that their traditional policy is to only accept "theists," but this is very easily a category that they could have just turned a blind eye to, since Scouting, practically speaking, has no real religious component to it.

That's probably what makes this whole long running controversy so maddening. There's no practical reason as to why this group had to shoot itself in its own foot. But it has, and now has to understand that there are consequences for those actions. The Scouts cannot have their cake and eat it too.

melon 10-21-2007 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nathan1977
It doesn't. That's not true.
By the way...

Quote:

"If a youth comes to a Scoutmaster and admits to doing wrong, like stealing, lying, cheating or vandalizing, the normal procedure is to counsel the youth privately and sympathetically...If the youth admits to being a homosexual, the Boy Scouts' policy is to instantly terminate his association with Scouting." - Findings of fact, in a DC court case
So, yes, the Scouts discriminate both in their leadership and membership.

A_Wanderer 10-21-2007 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MadelynIris
You know there are some college fraternities, and other social organizations that also require members to declare a belief in "God".

Curious if we should enact laws or come up with other creative ways for these groups to change.

Is there a point when clubs can or can't dictate certain membership criteria?

When they are getting support from the state.

Vincent Vega 10-21-2007 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MadelynIris
You know there are some college fraternities, and other social organizations that also require members to declare a belief in "God".

Curious if we should enact laws or come up with other creative ways for these groups to change.

Is there a point when clubs can or can't dictate certain membership criteria?

I think it's very hard to compare a fraternity, or some exclusive private club, to an organisation like the Scouts.
I don't think there is any discussion about public funding of any organisation that discriminates against any group of people; they just don't deserve it.

Legally you can't force them to accept any minority group, as has been ruled by the Supreme Court, but as citizens praising the freedom and tolerance and whatnot of your country it would be mightily contradictory to accept an organisation like the Scouts to deny gays or atheists the membership, when on the other hand Scout organisations are meant to teach children and teenagers values of living together responsibly and everything that goes with scouting.

In my opinion Scout organisations take some responsibility when they are claiming to educate children, and normally they do so.

At least there are other organisations independent of the BSA and it would be good if those organisations could attract more members, giving out a clear sign that intolerance isn't acceptable in these times.

But sadly, what I've learned from reading here there are many people who still see atheists and gays as something inferior you don't have to accept, nor tolerate.

So, at least, they lose there public funding and benefits.

BrownEyedBoy 10-21-2007 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dazzlingamy
so what? im sick and tired of people acting like men are just pathetic can't keep it in their pants type of people. Oh women can't be in special ops because they're around men so much that all the emn will do is wanna screw em, and not keep their mind on the job
oh you can't wear a short skirt, or top cause men will get all in a tizz and attack you
oh you can't be gay and go camping with other guys because you'll start getting all brokeback mountain on them
oh you can't be on a team with guys when your a homo because everytime you have a shower with them, you want to jump all there asses.

its such utter bullshit. This belief that men are all predators and can't keep it in their pants to EXCLUDE people from things is so fucking pathetic.

Way to twist what I said into something that it's not.

See, you forget that girls and boys DON'T shower together. And the girls troop sleeps in a different tent. It's the same thing. How does that not make sense?

indra 10-21-2007 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MadelynIris
You know there are some college fraternities, and other social organizations that also require members to declare a belief in "God".

Curious if we should enact laws or come up with other creative ways for these groups to change.

Is there a point when clubs can or can't dictate certain membership criteria?

In this case no one is telling the boy scouts they can't discriminate. They are simply no longer going to subsidise their office space if they do. If they want to have the rights of a private organisation they should be prepared to accept the responsibilities as well. Paying market value rent is one of those responsibilities. I thought responsibility was a big boy scout thing.

melon 10-21-2007 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BrownEyedBoy
See, you forget that girls and boys DON'T shower together. And the girls troop sleeps in a different tent. It's the same thing. How does that not make sense?
It doesn't make sense, because it isn't the same situation. Chances are, if you have ever been in a group showering situation, at least one of those people has been gay and you didn't know it. Now did it kill you?

Frankly, this whole hypothetical situation is ridiculous. This kind of discrimination doesn't eliminate homosexuals; it just keeps them hidden. So if you're worried about them lusting after you behind your back, guess what? It's could still be happening!

deep 10-21-2007 04:53 PM

I was a Cub Scout and a Boy Scout

and being 'morally chase' and unsympathetic to gays went - hand in hand (figuratively speaking)

"Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man"


https://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/...itlerYouth.jpg

anitram 10-21-2007 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BrownEyedBoy

See, you forget that girls and boys DON'T shower together. And the girls troop sleeps in a different tent. It's the same thing. How does that not make sense?

Boys and girls (at least in the Western setting) have not been culturally groomed to shower together, and therefore it is seen as unacceptable much like walking around topless (for women) is not something you would see on our streets.

Boys do shower together and women shower together and there are gay men and lesbians among them that you may be unaware of.

phillyfan26 10-21-2007 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BrownEyedBoy
It's the same thing.
Uh, it's not.

Melon and anitram pretty much said everything I want to say about it though.

MadelynIris 10-21-2007 05:09 PM

Quote:

In this case no one is telling the boy scouts they can't discriminate. They are simply no longer going to subsidise their office space if they do. If they want to have the rights of a private organisation they should be prepared to accept the responsibilities as well. Paying market value rent is one of those responsibilities. I thought responsibility was a big boy scout thing.
Sure, if $200,000 the going rate -- so be it.

martha 10-21-2007 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MadelynIris


Sure, if $200,000 the going rate -- so be it.

Do you think the city is gouging the Scouts?

Vincent Vega 10-21-2007 06:04 PM

You can easily find the current market value for any estate on the internet, so I don't think they are trying to screw them.
And it's certainly a realistic price for an estate in the city of Philadelphia.

dazzlingamy 10-22-2007 05:28 AM

:love: thanks guys!

for the record, when i went camping i shared a tent with 8 other boys. 8 smelly farting horomonal boys, and a part from being grossed out by the smells, i went to sleep and woke up intact. In fact i actually shared a BLANKET with another boy and no hanky panky went on. Because you see, we were friends, and young, and well, he wasn't some psycho walking errection male.

anyway, just my two cents on this whole issue which i find ludicrious, and rediculous to the extreme.

Angela Harlem 10-22-2007 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MadelynIris


Sure, if $200,000 the going rate -- so be it.

Really hurts, doesn't it, this banning of gays business.

Vincent Vega 10-22-2007 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dazzlingamy
:love: thanks guys!

for the record, when i went camping i shared a tent with 8 other boys. 8 smelly farting horomonal boys, and a part from being grossed out by the smells, i went to sleep and woke up intact. In fact i actually shared a BLANKET with another boy and no hanky panky went on. Because you see, we were friends, and young, and well, he wasn't some psycho walking errection male.

anyway, just my two cents on this whole issue which i find ludicrious, and rediculous to the extreme.

Well, to be honest, if the little man down there wants to stand up, you have no control over it.
But anything else... well, if you can't control it you need some therapy.

Irvine511 10-22-2007 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MadelynIris


Sure, if $200,000 the going rate -- so be it.



if that's what it costs to keep the queers and godless off our boys, then so be it.

MrsSpringsteen 10-22-2007 08:51 AM

God there's lots o'hot stuff going on in showers apparently. I thought people were just cleaning themselves and washing their hair :shrug:

BrownEyedBoy 10-24-2007 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
God there's lots o'hot stuff going on in showers apparently. I thought people were just cleaning themselves and washing their hair :shrug:

I notice how there is so much selective ignorance going on in this subject. It´s very selfish to assume that a woman would not feel uncomfortable showering in front of a man.

The whole point of allowing same sex showering is because it is presumed that there won´t be any "peeping" going on thus ensuring each person´s privacy. How does that not make sense?

MrsSpringsteen 10-24-2007 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BrownEyedBoy



I notice how there is so much selective ignorance going on in this subject. It´s very selfish to assume that a woman would not feel uncomfortable showering in front of a man.

The whole point of allowing same sex showering is because it is presumed that there won´t be any "peeping" going on thus ensuring each person´s privacy. How does that not make sense?

Ignorance? The point we were making is that men aren't animals (neither are women) and could actually shower together (with men and women) without attacking each other sexually. That's not the same as people feeling uncomfortable doing it. So same goes for men with men. What's "ignorant" perhaps is having such a seemingly low opinion of your own gender. That was the point.

I bet more straight guys are "peeping" at other straight guys than any gay men are.

BrownEyedBoy 10-24-2007 12:15 PM

Well, by your line of reasoning, there´s no point in having two different bathrooms for different genders because "we can all control ourselves". Give me a break.

MrsSpringsteen 10-24-2007 12:19 PM

No-we can have two different bathrooms but, at the same time, we can also control ourselves. We can be private and modest while at the same time being progressive and human rather than animal and see ourselves as such-the two aren't mutually exclusive.

The shower issue is some red herring that some bring up here and it always seems to be regarding a gay issue. Why is that? Are the scoutmasters showering with the Boyscouts?

BrownEyedBoy 10-24-2007 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
No-we can have two different bathrooms but, at the same time, we can also control ourselves. We can be private and modest while at the same time being progressive and human rather than animal and see ourselves as such-the two aren't mutually exclusive.

The shower issue is some red herring that some bring up here and it always seems to be regarding a gay issue. Why is that? Are the scoutmasters showering with the Boyscouts?

You´re right in an ideal world everyone will control themselves but in the flawed world we occupy it cannot be expected from the entire population. You have to prevent.

MrsSpringsteen 10-24-2007 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BrownEyedBoy

You´re right in an ideal world everyone will control themselves but in the flawed world we occupy it cannot be expected from the entire population. You have to prevent.

Are you talking about showers or about gay people being allowed in boyscouts? People do bad things because of the kind of people they are, not their sexual orientation-and that is related to this scout issue. There could be straight scoutmasters doing lots of bad things.

I shouldn't walk down a street, because I have to prevent xyz from a nefarious gentleman. Or maybe I should wear a burqa.

Hinder 10-24-2007 12:38 PM

I dunno - I haven't heard much about people raping each other at nudist camps. They seem perfectly capable of not attacking every sexually attractive naked body they see..? I mean, that's a lot of naked body parts out there for the eye to see, and yet, these people manage to get on wonderfully.

Sure, I can see where there'd be discomfort, but if you can't control yourself, then you have a serious problem on your hands. To tell you the truth, I've seen sufficient naked men in my lifetime that the sight of a penis doesn't really do anything for me - it's just there. At worst, I might start laughing just because it looks so silly just dangling there.

Of course, it doesn't help that I work in an animal clinic, where all you see all day are male bits dangling, and have to, with a straight face, explain what neutering is. I mean, literally, I had to explain to this guy over the phone that neutering meant removing the male testicles. Five times, no less, with a client standing there laughing like a lunatic. I was like,:banghead: :banghead: "Must. Not. Laugh."

BrownEyedBoy 10-24-2007 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen


Are you talking about showers or about gay people being allowed in boyscouts? People do bad things because of the kind of people they are, not their sexual orientation-and that is related to this scout issue. There could be straight scoutmasters doing lots of bad things.

I shouldn't walk down a street, because I have to prevent xyz from a nefarious gentleman. Or maybe I should wear a burqa.

You can´t talk about one issue without the other one. Like I said before Boy Scouts, like the army, have a lot of intimacy with each other. I know you guys will probably hit the roof with this but just as there´s a boy´s tent and a girl´s tent, in order for things to work correctly there should be a "homosexual" tent.

unico 10-24-2007 12:56 PM

well, for one, just because somebody is homosexual does not mean they are trying to hump everyone belonging to their sex. you have to give them more credit than that.

and, why the need for separate tents for homosexuals? are you trying to prevent sex from happening? does having a separate tent for females and males stop them from sleeping together if they really wanted to? after spending my time in the military, i already know the answer to this question.

they are separated by sex because of the physiology and different needs, not because of their orientation.

BrownEyedBoy 10-24-2007 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by unico


they are separated by sex because of the physiology and different needs, not because of their orientation.

I´ve always been under the impression that it has been for both reasons. I´ll try to read more on this but you can go ahead and explain that. I really doubt it was just because of physiology. But I´ll agree with you if you can back up your point.

MrsSpringsteen 10-24-2007 01:00 PM

People can have intimacy with each other in normal, everyday boring life and work life and social life and not have any sexual actions take place. That includes gay people as well-they are not hypersexual humans, they are just humans like all of us. The extent to which we control our desires is the personal responsibility, as individual human beings. It has nothing to do with man, woman, gay, straight. Like I said, it is a lowly opinion of one's own gender.

I'm not even going to say what I think about a "homosexual tent". My head might explode.

unico 10-24-2007 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BrownEyedBoy


I´ve always been under the impression that it has been for both reasons. I´ll try to read more on this but you can go ahead and explain that. I really doubt it was just because of physiology. But I´ll agree with you if you can back up your point.

i'll cut a deal with you. i'll respond to this when you respond to the questions i've asked you in the other thread :wink:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com