|
On June 08 2012 11:54 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 11:26 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 11:20 DoubleReed wrote:On June 08 2012 11:07 Uncultured wrote:
I'd just like to point out once again, that it's not my opinion that things should be this way. But that doesn't stop it from being so. I'm all for gays being allowed into the scouts. I am not, however, for forcing an organization to change its values, simply because it's federally funded. If you don't want an organization that holds certain values to be federally funded, than adress that issue itself. Dont' try to force the organization to bend to your will.
Federal law tends to agree with this opinion. Otherwise there would be regulations in place for federally funded organizations to have to let everyone in, no matter what. If there was such a law, then we wouldn't be having a conversation, because you all would be getting your way. Actually no, that's not how it works. It goes against the equal protection clause. That's the law. You are only showing your ignorance about what Federal Law contains. You are allowed to go against the equal protection clause if you are not funded by public money. But they are. So they have to obey it. Organizations cannot discriminate like that. And no, it's not the same thing as 'qualifications.' Well, that's a fine argument, and it would prove me wrong. But why is it that the scouts get to vote on this then? Are you saying that if they vote no, then federal funding will be removed? Can you provide any sources to verify that claim. If so then yes, I'm ignorant of the law. Or the law must be very new, considering how long the scouts haven't been adhering to it. Here's a relevant part of the Equal Protection Clause that seems to agree with me: After Brown, questions still remained about the scope of the equal protection clause. Does the Clause outlaw public policies that cause racial disparities—for example, a public school examination that has not been established for racist reasons, but that more white students than black students pass? Or, on the other hand, does it prohibit only intentional bigotry?[citation needed]
The Supreme Court has answered that the equal protection clause itself does not forbid policies which lead to racial disparities, but that Congress may by legislation prohibit such policies. Uhm... do you lack reading comprehension? That is talking about things like quotas. 'Disparities' just refers to unequal numbers. That has absolutely nothing to do with anything we're talking about, and I have no idea how you could possibly think that is relevant to this conversation. In fact, I'm so shocked that you could possibly think that that is "agreeing with you" that I'm going to go drink myself into a stupor and hopefully forget this conversation ever happened. Good day.
I quoted the only thing slightly resembling what we're talking about within the clause that you yourself suggested. If you'd like to find a more relevant part of the clause that supports your argument than sure, that would be great. And would likely prove me wrong. But you're not doing it. And you probably wont do it, because it's not in there.
|
Just because we've seemed to have gotten sidetracked from my original point with all your straw men, I'll reiterate it:
If you don't want federal money going to bigoted companies your only options seems to be for you to not pay taxes, or to vote someone in who will spend the money elsewhere. There are many examples of discrimination in federally funded busineses. Sometimes this discrimination is perfectly valid, and okay. Sometimes it isn't. In either case it is the orginizations place to determine what these stipulations for joining are. Not you, the tax-payers.
If there is a clause/bill/law that states that because an organization is federally funded that they can not discriminate in a bigoted way against who they hire, then why hasn't anyone sued the ass off of the Boy Scouts? Why have they been allowed to do as such for so long? Please cite me the law.
My original point is that though it would be idealistic and nice for every tax-payer to have a say in the discrimination policies of an organization, that doesn't seem to be the way the law currently works. And its probably for good reason, considering how many people have apposing viewpoints on who should or shouldn't be allowed into certain organizations. Therefore work within the confines of the law by voting for the money to go elsewhere if you have a problem with it. Don't try to force your will on an organization by making them change because you feel like they should. Because likely you wont get anywhere, or get any help from the side of the law in doing so.
I say that I do not know how the law works. I could be wrong, and the Boys Scouts could be breaking laws by not letting gays into their troupe. But I doubt that is so, because no one has been able to provide any evidence of it being so. And no one seems to be taking them to court over it. Or they probably never would have been funded in the first place if such laws existed.
|
|
|
If BSA wants to stay relevant in the 21st century, they are going to have to adapt. Even highly conservative institutions change with time or they become irrelevant. Maybe it is different in the US but where I grew up scouts has become less and less important. When "being a man" was important, than it held a cultural significance. Now, it is just a place for kids to hang out, and if parents don't like the message they wont let their kids go.
TLDR: If scouts wants to be relevant, they need to change.
|
On June 08 2012 12:31 Uncultured wrote:
Just because we've seemed to have gotten sidetracked from my original point with all your straw men, I'll reiterate it:
If you don't want federal money going to bigoted companies your only options seems to be for you to not pay taxes, or to vote someone in who will spend the money elsewhere. There are many examples of discrimination in federally funded busineses. Sometimes this discrimination is perfectly valid, and okay. Sometimes it isn't. In either case it is the orginizations place to determine what these stipulations for joining are. Not you, the tax-payers.
If there is a clause/bill/law that states that because an organization is federally funded that they can not discriminate in a bigoted way against who they hire, then why hasn't anyone sued the ass off of the Boy Scouts? Why have they been allowed to do as such for so long? Please cite me the law.
My original point is that though it would be idealistic and nice for every tax-payer to have a say in the discrimination policies of an organization, that doesn't seem to be the way the law currently works. And its probably for good reason, considering how many people have apposing viewpoints on who should or shouldn't be allowed into certain organizations. Therefore work within the confines of the law by voting for the money to go elsewhere if you have a problem with it. Don't try to force your will on an organization by making them change because you feel like they should. Because likely you wont get anywhere, or get any help from the side of the law in doing so.
I say that I do not know how the law works. I could be wrong, and the Boys Scouts could be breaking laws by not letting gays into their troupe. But I doubt that is so, because no one has been able to provide any evidence of it being so. And no one seems to be taking them to court over it. Or they probably never would have been funded in the first place if such laws existed.
Not necessarily. You dont have to go to that extreme. The government should express the will of the people, and the people of this time has very much matured and have done away with bigoted, anti-gay, anti-christian/religion/athieists and racist sentiments. That is why it is such a surprised that government money is being spent on an organization that still espouses such dark ages philosophy. You dont need a revolution for this. The people just have to express their unequivocal sentiment and the government should heed it. That is the essence of democracy.
|
One day we'll look back on this and view it exactly as we view race and gender segregation today. How people cannot see this is completely beyond me.
|
Gays should not be allowed for the same reason as women.
User was warned for this post
|
On June 08 2012 14:34 Quasimoto3000 wrote:
Gays should not be allowed for the same reason as women.
...Their vaginas? Obviously not.
Seriously, I don't understand your point. What is the reason? I don't see the connection.
|
On June 08 2012 14:34 Quasimoto3000 wrote:
Gays should not be allowed for the same reason as women.
Please elaborate
|
America is a country where people are free to express themselves, but freedom is a two way street. If gays are free to express themselves, the scouts should have to be free to express themselves too. I have met these men, they are good men, they are kind men, they do what they do what they think is best for kids. No matter how wrong we think they might be, it is not right to force them to think our way. It is up to us to persuade and help them see the light, not extort them to. Scouts help and have always helped a lot of kids, that’s why I love them. I will continue to persuade them to change their minds, but it is up to them to do it. It is their private club.
-_-
|
On June 08 2012 14:56 actionbastrd wrote:
America is a country where people are free to express themselves, but freedom is a two way street. If gays are free to express themselves, the scouts should have to be free to express themselves too. I have met these men, they are good men, they are kind men, they do what they do what they think is best for kids. No matter how wrong we think they might be, it is not right to force them to think our way. It is up to us to persuade and help them see the light, not extort them to. Scouts help and have always helped a lot of kids, that’s why I love them. I will continue to persuade them to change their minds, but it is up to them to do it. It is their private club.
-_-
But we fund them with our taxes. Our government funds them. Isn't that wrong?
|
On June 08 2012 14:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 14:56 actionbastrd wrote:
America is a country where people are free to express themselves, but freedom is a two way street. If gays are free to express themselves, the scouts should have to be free to express themselves too. I have met these men, they are good men, they are kind men, they do what they do what they think is best for kids. No matter how wrong we think they might be, it is not right to force them to think our way. It is up to us to persuade and help them see the light, not extort them to. Scouts help and have always helped a lot of kids, that’s why I love them. I will continue to persuade them to change their minds, but it is up to them to do it. It is their private club.
-_- But we fund them with our taxes. Our government funds them. Isn't that wrong?
Well, ommiting gays is wrong, but this fact comes reletively new overall i think. I mean, our taxes pay for many things and not all of those things, or people rather, support gays. It is no different i think. Eventually everyone will get over themselves and being gay wont matter to anyone at all (well hopefully), but we arent there yet. It is lame tho.
The tax thing would be a better fit if everyone who pays for taxes was pro gay and that is just not the case.
Again, its not right, but its just one of those things that will eventually change if not right now. Not just with scouts, but with everyone
|
On June 08 2012 07:44 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 07:39 North2 wrote:
I actually voted No on this.
It's not that I have anything against gay people, it's just not the image they're trying to portray. It'd be like having one white guy in a completely black Catholic church. It's just gonna be awkward for both parties. What? You're ok with the boy scouts not allowing gay people because it's "awkward." The fuck kind of argument is that? The only people making things awkward are the homophobes and jackasses.
Ok...I guess I'll just word it differently. If you want to have an analogy from Starcraft, it'd be like whining about not being in Code S just because you don't have the skill to be in it. It's the whole point of Code S. To me, the whole point of Boy Scouts is to teach qualities of a "normal" male citizen. You can argue about it if you want, but to me being gay is definitely not normal. There's nothing wrong or bad about being gay, but it isn't normal. It defeats the point. Why not allow girls in too while you're at it then if you're so against the anti-gay policy since it's certainly sexist to not let girls in, even if the name is Boy Scouts.
To be clear, I do not think it's even right for the Boy Scouts to even exist under its current image. I find "normal" people to be pretty boring, and it's pretty stuck-up and dickbaggery for them to not allow gay people in. I just think it defeats the whole purpose of their existence if they do.
Also, don't compare this with segregation because it is certainly not the same thing. Nobody is forcing gay people to join the boy scouts, and they aren't missing anything either.
|
On June 08 2012 15:06 North2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 07:44 DoubleReed wrote:On June 08 2012 07:39 North2 wrote:
I actually voted No on this.
It's not that I have anything against gay people, it's just not the image they're trying to portray. It'd be like having one white guy in a completely black Catholic church. It's just gonna be awkward for both parties. What? You're ok with the boy scouts not allowing gay people because it's "awkward." The fuck kind of argument is that? The only people making things awkward are the homophobes and jackasses. Ok...I guess I'll just word it differently. If you want to have an analogy from Starcraft, it'd be like whining about not being in Code S just because you don't have the skill to be in it. It's the whole point of Code S. To me, the whole point of Boy Scouts is to teach qualities of a "normal" male citizen. You can argue about it if you want, but to me being gay is definitely not normal. There's nothing wrong or bad about being gay, but it isn't normal. It defeats the point. Why not allow girls in too while you're at it then if you're so against the anti-gay policy since it's certainly sexist to not let girls in, even if the name is Boy Scouts. To be clear, I do not think it's even right for the Boy Scouts to even exist under its current image. I find "normal" people to be pretty boring, and it's pretty stuck-up and dickbaggery for them to not allow gay people in. I just think it defeats the whole purpose of their existence if they do. Also, don't compare this with segregation because it is certainly not the same thing. Nobody is forcing gay people to join the boy scouts, and they aren't missing anything either.
Hmm. In the US being black is a minority, therefore it's out of the norm. I think the Boy Scouts shouldn't allow black kids in because it's all about teaching how to be a member of the dominant white population, and they just don't fit in. It's not wrong or bad, of course. But it's out of the ordinary. It defeats the point.
Asides from this point, why should the Boy Scouts be about "normality" and not about being a productive member of society? Which gays can certainly learn to do just as well as straights.
|
Nah, they have traditionally stood anti-gay on the issue during changing political and social times. I think they will hold firm in this instance also. The challenges are not new, the supreme court ruling was in favor of the boy scouts, and no inter-organization news is particularly groundbreaking. Now if they ever accept any public funding or seek to integrate into a public school after school program, expect it to change in a heartbeat. Remaining a private club receiving private funding in America, I don't see this going through.
|
On June 08 2012 15:42 Danglars wrote:
Nah, they have traditionally stood anti-gay on the issue during changing political and social times. I think they will hold firm in this instance also. The challenges are not new, the supreme court ruling was in favor of the boy scouts, and no inter-organization news is particularly groundbreaking. Now if they ever accept any public funding or seek to integrate into a public school after school program, expect it to change in a heartbeat. Remaining a private club receiving private funding in America, I don't see this going through.
Sigh. Why do some people neglect reading the thread and the facts about the BSA >.<
|
'Although the Colorado State Supreme Court rules in Big Gay Al's favor orders the Mountain Scouts to take him back, he refuses, saying that he loves scouts too much to impose his will on them, and while they should be talked into changing their mind and he begs people not to cut their funding or support for the scouts, adding that as the Scouts are a private organization, he believes it is their libertarian right to form their own policies on homosexuality. At the same time, Kenny is carried off by an eagle.'
-South Park [Season 5: Episode 2] ''Cripple Fight''
For sure, this is totally relevant.
|
I nearly turned in my Eagle Scout award after I heard about BSA's position on gays (and the ban on atheist/agnostics). I was ashamed to be a part of any organization that held these kinds of backwards values. I'm glad to see that my decision to stay an Eagle Scout might weigh easier on my conscience. 
|
Also, for everyone saying "BSA is a private club they can do what they want."
1) BSA is baaaaaaaarely private. Putting aside economics, it is private only in name.
2) You position may legally defensible, but it's not morally. We can't just the term "private" be a blank check for whatever kind of behavior or attitudes. The value of the term "private" is almost worthless when the organization is very much a part of the public eye. The country is moving in the right direction; private though it is, we can't let that stop us from demanding that this cultural figurehead move with us.
|
"Ultimately, the courts ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts of America in each case"
Every case was lost to the BSA. Every case was civil, and had nothing to do with Federal law,
On June 08 2012 18:03 Sunfish wrote:
2) You position may legally defensible, but it's not morally. We can't just the term "private" be a blank check for whatever kind of behavior or attitudes. The value of the term "private" is almost worthless when the organization is very much a part of the public eye. The country is moving in the right direction; private though it is, we can't let that stop us from demanding that this cultural figurehead move with us.
How is it morally defensible to force your own opinion on others? Just because it is more instep with he public thinking (which isn't really true, 50% of Americans are against same-sex marriage, for example) doesn't mean it's more correct. Just because the majority agrees on something doesn't mean the minority is "wrong". These are all just our opinions and feelings, and people are right to have them. There is a reason why we allow the KKK to exists still, in our society. Because we would be hypocrites not to. You can not force people to change their opinion on who should be hired. You can only vote to remove federal funding going to these organizations. And that is honestly how it should be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
