|
Why would gay people even want to be in scouts? Being out in the woods alone with just other guys...oh, I get it
But seriously, I think they should be allowed to be boy scouts if they want, I would just feel bad for them because boys that age like to tease a lot and they might be bullied out of going
|
On June 08 2012 07:51 austinmcc wrote:Was anyone here a Boy Scout in a troop that was openly anti-gay? Maybe I had an odd troop, because we weren't church-sponsored, but we had at least one gay kid in our troop that we knew of. Just because the BSA formalized some anti-gay policy doesn't mean the uniforms wouldn't fit on gay kids or that they're coming around with the gaydar and kicking out anyone who pings. If your troop wasn't homophobic, my experience with mine, and what I'm guessing was other scouts' experience as well, was that they weren't going to kick you out over "policy." Show nested quote +http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/06/12086046-boy-scouts-review-controversial-anti-gay-policy?lite
The new policy would throw out the national ban and allow local chartering organizations to decide whether or not they would accept gay youth and leaders, said Zach Wahls, an Eagle Scout who has advocated for the change, citing unidentified people he spoke to who attended the group's national annual meeting last week where the proposal was made. This change isn't nearly as big a change as anyone is making it out to be. The national organization is NEVER attending local scout meetings, telling you who can and can't be in your troop. If anyone has been anti-gay, it's been at the troop and council level, more local, and the change just keeps that in place. All this does is maybe open up troops that were fine with gay scouts but for some reason not allowing it because that was "policy." Which I'm guessing is a very, very low number.
I was also in a non-church affiliated troop. It was great, had a good time. However, while our troop never had an issues with gay kids that I know of, our council did.
One of my friends was gay, and was about to make Eagle. He was the perfect boy scout too. Spoke 4+ languages, organized an amazing Eagle project with over 100 volunteers, served as Senior Patrol Leader, the list just goes on. Everyone knew he was gay, but he hadn't come out and said it, so technically he was "in the closet" and the organization turned a blind eye. But, he decided to make a point, and came out very openly and made sure the BSA knew all about it.
They kicked his ass out, didn't even let him get his Eagle. I'm still pretty pissed about it, put a big black mark on an otherwise awesome time in scouting.
|
On June 08 2012 08:22 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 08:18 Loanshark wrote:On June 08 2012 08:08 Savio wrote:
I would feel as awkward sending my sons to go sleep in a tent with gay grown men as I would sending my daughter of the same age to sleep in a tent with heterosexual grown men.
Seems like the BSA might have a reason to strike the resolution down.
Doesn't seem all that complicated to me. Ehhhh just because you let gays join up doesn't mean that there's going to suddenly be close bodily contact going on. Hence, why I would feel the same sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would feel sending my son with homosexual men. Either way, there shouldn't be contact, but the worry would be there. Which is why I would feel the same either way. Its not a very complicated concept. It basically means having the same concern for homosexuality as you do for heterosexuality.
This sounds paranoid, rather than homophobic. Would you similarly be worried about co-ed roommates or homosexual roommates? What if the scout leader was married?
|
On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 08:25 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:15 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:11 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:08 Savio wrote:
I would feel as awkward sending my sons to go sleep in a tent with gay grown men as I would sending my daughter of the same age to sleep in a tent with heterosexual grown men.
Seems like the BSA might have a reason to strike the resolution down.
Doesn't seem all that complicated to me. Why? Are all gay men sexual predators? Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way. That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men. Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you? I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while.
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
|
On June 08 2012 07:56 Rhine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 05:42 RodrigoX wrote:
The Boy Scouts of America banning gay people is 100 percent completely reasonable. It is a social club. A club with their own rules and policies. It is also completely legal because in their bi-laws they state no homosexuals should participate. I mean nobody allows open and practicing Muslims in Catholics parishes. White people in Black student Scholarship funds.
The boy scouts is an idea, and unfortunately homosexuals do not conform to that idea. If they wanted to be part of the Boy scouts they should you know, stop being gay.
This may seem to be a bigoted position, but it is a Christian organization. Homosexuality presents a lifestyle that is not Christian. I mean, why don't gay people start a Boy Scouts esq organization that accepts all kinds of ideals. It is a group for like minded people. Gay people are not like minded in the sense of the Boy Scouts of America.
Edit: It is wrong for the Transportation system to discriminant because it is not a private industry. It is a completely public industry. I mean the only reason a restaurant can not decline serving black people is because of the idea of a centrally planned economy. If it was a completely capitalist economy, discrimination if anything is enforced. I mean sure, if you wanted to make clubs and organizations publically owned then sure, lets have the government control everything. But if you still want an organization to be privately owned, and let them to do them, then leave them be to their own ideals. Sure, but then they shouldn't receive tax money.
I don't know if you realize this from all the way up on your holy arches, but homosexuality has been rampant in Christianity since the time of Christ. Perhaps instead of having an argument that you even claims "seems bigoted", because it is bigoted, you should rethink your contradictory old age idiotic brainwashed inequitable logic based on bullshit and join the real world... Where the world was created billions of years ago, the world is not flat and the sun does not (incase you didn't catch that) revolve around earth
On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:25 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:15 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:11 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:08 Savio wrote:
I would feel as awkward sending my sons to go sleep in a tent with gay grown men as I would sending my daughter of the same age to sleep in a tent with heterosexual grown men.
Seems like the BSA might have a reason to strike the resolution down.
Doesn't seem all that complicated to me. Why? Are all gay men sexual predators? Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way. That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men. Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you? I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while. So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
That's the issue with formulating an opinion based on personal generalizations from being in a field where you are only surrounded with specific stereotypes... Basically she is generalizing all gay men as men that would have sex with children just based on sexuality... So in fact, associated all gays with being molesters. Perhaps your not suited for the correct job, seeing as I feel your advice can change lives, and obviously you have a very easily compelled generic personality which stereotypes.
|
second double post of the day
|
If this is an internal decision they are choosing to make then I support it. If they are being strongly pressured, which they no doubt are, and are caving in to that pressure, then I don't support it. And no they shouldn't receive federal funding.
|
On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:25 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:15 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:11 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:08 Savio wrote:
I would feel as awkward sending my sons to go sleep in a tent with gay grown men as I would sending my daughter of the same age to sleep in a tent with heterosexual grown men.
Seems like the BSA might have a reason to strike the resolution down.
Doesn't seem all that complicated to me. Why? Are all gay men sexual predators? Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way. That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men. Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you? I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while. So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
|
On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:25 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:15 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:11 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:08 Savio wrote:
I would feel as awkward sending my sons to go sleep in a tent with gay grown men as I would sending my daughter of the same age to sleep in a tent with heterosexual grown men.
Seems like the BSA might have a reason to strike the resolution down.
Doesn't seem all that complicated to me. Why? Are all gay men sexual predators? Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way. That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men. Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you? I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while. So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
|
On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:25 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:15 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:11 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:08 Savio wrote:
I would feel as awkward sending my sons to go sleep in a tent with gay grown men as I would sending my daughter of the same age to sleep in a tent with heterosexual grown men.
Seems like the BSA might have a reason to strike the resolution down.
Doesn't seem all that complicated to me. Why? Are all gay men sexual predators? Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way. That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men. Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you? I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while. So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here. It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
|
On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:25 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:15 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:11 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:08 Savio wrote:
I would feel as awkward sending my sons to go sleep in a tent with gay grown men as I would sending my daughter of the same age to sleep in a tent with heterosexual grown men.
Seems like the BSA might have a reason to strike the resolution down.
Doesn't seem all that complicated to me. Why? Are all gay men sexual predators? Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way. That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men. Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you? I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while. So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here. It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
Why wouldn't federal funding (meaning the miniscule percentage of the childs parents who's kid is rejected) matter? Drug testing, you bumbling idiot, isn't discrimination at all... If they only drug tested blacks/hispanics then yes that would be discrimination but equal testing is equality... Drug testing... Why are the worst arguments in the world always formulated on the side who approves of bigotry.
When you use federal funding, you are no longer privately operated... As private as you want to be, it's now a public institution (or partially) and such all of the public (while abiding by the law) should be able to participate...
Oh and let me get this straight, you're saying that tax payers dollars should support bigotry because in the past others have supported bigotry and idiots will always be bigots so let them be? Just curious on your stance.
|
On June 08 2012 08:28 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 08:21 NoDDiE wrote:
im kinda happy i live in a country in which such situation would just make huge LOL.
on the side note what would happen if suddenly everyone would start being homo ?XD world would die?
World would at least be a good place for a bit.
Lol I do hope you're joking. As if sexual preferences define good and evil. xD
|
On June 08 2012 10:14 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:25 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:15 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:11 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:08 Savio wrote:
I would feel as awkward sending my sons to go sleep in a tent with gay grown men as I would sending my daughter of the same age to sleep in a tent with heterosexual grown men.
Seems like the BSA might have a reason to strike the resolution down.
Doesn't seem all that complicated to me. Why? Are all gay men sexual predators? Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way. That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men. Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you? I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while. So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here. It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. Why wouldn't federal funding (meaning the miniscule percentage of the childs parents who's kid is rejected) matter? Drug testing, you bumbling idiot, isn't discrimination at all... Why are the worst arguments in the world always formulated on the side who approves of bigotry. When you use federal funding, you are no longer privately operated... As private as you want to be, it's now a public institution (or partially) and such all of the public (while abiding by the law) should be able to participate... Oh and let me get this straight, you're saying that tax payers dollars should support bigotry because in the past others have supported bigotry and idiots will always be bigots so let them be? Just curious on your stance. '
Sorry you lost me at the insults. And yes, drug tests are discriminatory.Often people with medical issues can't get jobs because of their legal meds.
Read my edit if you want further explanations. Vote where your money goes, not what the practices of the organization it goes to are.
Have a nice day.
|
On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:25 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:15 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:11 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:08 Savio wrote:
I would feel as awkward sending my sons to go sleep in a tent with gay grown men as I would sending my daughter of the same age to sleep in a tent with heterosexual grown men.
Seems like the BSA might have a reason to strike the resolution down.
Doesn't seem all that complicated to me. Why? Are all gay men sexual predators? Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way. That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men. Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you? I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while. So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here. It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values. And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
|
On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:25 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:15 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:11 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:08 Savio wrote:
I would feel as awkward sending my sons to go sleep in a tent with gay grown men as I would sending my daughter of the same age to sleep in a tent with heterosexual grown men.
Seems like the BSA might have a reason to strike the resolution down.
Doesn't seem all that complicated to me. Why? Are all gay men sexual predators? Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way. That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men. Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you? I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while. So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here. It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values. And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly? It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions.
|
On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:25 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:15 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:11 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:08 Savio wrote:
I would feel as awkward sending my sons to go sleep in a tent with gay grown men as I would sending my daughter of the same age to sleep in a tent with heterosexual grown men.
Seems like the BSA might have a reason to strike the resolution down.
Doesn't seem all that complicated to me. Why? Are all gay men sexual predators? Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way. That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men. Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you? I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while. So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here. It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values. And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly? It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights.
Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race...
If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone.
On June 08 2012 10:19 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:25 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:15 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:11 oldgregg wrote:
[quote]
Why? Are all gay men sexual predators? Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way. That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men. Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you? I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while. So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here. It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values. And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly? It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions.
stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots.
To elaborate, simply put, if 100 people (sample size since apparently something like 7% of americans have been boy scouts) pay 100 dollars for something together, 1% can't simply just waltz in and say "ok this half, yes you... you still give us the money, but you can't join us when we use it... Oh and you too, I don't enjoy your look, you sit back down"
That's not how it works, and it shouldn't be permitted.
|
On June 08 2012 10:16 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 10:14 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:25 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:15 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:11 oldgregg wrote:
[quote]
Why? Are all gay men sexual predators? Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way. That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men. Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you? I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while. So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here. It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. Why wouldn't federal funding (meaning the miniscule percentage of the childs parents who's kid is rejected) matter? Drug testing, you bumbling idiot, isn't discrimination at all... Why are the worst arguments in the world always formulated on the side who approves of bigotry. When you use federal funding, you are no longer privately operated... As private as you want to be, it's now a public institution (or partially) and such all of the public (while abiding by the law) should be able to participate... Oh and let me get this straight, you're saying that tax payers dollars should support bigotry because in the past others have supported bigotry and idiots will always be bigots so let them be? Just curious on your stance. ' Sorry you lost me at the insults. And yes, drug tests are discriminatory.Often people with medical issues can't get jobs because of their legal meds. Read my edit if you want further explanations. Vote where your money goes, not what the practices of the organization it goes to are. Have a nice day.
Not sure if serious. You are given a drug test for jobs because, guess what, illegal drugs are illegal and criminals should not be working trusted positions. Those who have medical issues can't get jobs because, guess what, those legal meds make them unable to properly do their job. This literally has nothing to do with being gay, which has no affect whatsoever on your performance at your job as a scout leader. Wow.
|
On June 08 2012 08:38 NibbloniaN wrote:
Why would gay people even want to be in scouts? Being out in the woods alone with just other guys...oh, I get it
But seriously, I think they should be allowed to be boy scouts if they want, I would just feel bad for them because boys that age like to tease a lot and they might be bullied out of going
Boys tease and bully? Wow I guess fat kids, those with acne, or any other "abnormal" condition should not apply either.
|
On June 08 2012 10:15 Psychobabas wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 08:28 Zaros wrote:On June 08 2012 08:21 NoDDiE wrote:
im kinda happy i live in a country in which such situation would just make huge LOL.
on the side note what would happen if suddenly everyone would start being homo ?XD world would die?
World would at least be a good place for a bit. Lol I do hope you're joking. As if sexual preferences define good and evil. xD
i meant good as in awesome not as in good and evil.
|
On June 08 2012 10:20 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:25 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:15 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:11 oldgregg wrote:
[quote]
Why? Are all gay men sexual predators? Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way. That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men. Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you? I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while. So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here. It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values. And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly? It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights. Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race... If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone. Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 10:19 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:25 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:15 Savio wrote:
[quote]
Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way.
That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men. Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you? I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while. So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here. It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values. And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly? It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions. stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots.
That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
