|
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.
No, that's not the stated goal of the Boy Scouts. You seem to have a weird stereotype of the boy scouts in your head for some reason. I'm not really sure where it comes from, but that's not what the boy scouts are. I have no idea what you mean by "normal." If you mean 'majority' then guess what, being left handed is not normal, being male is not normal. Who cares?
Yes, the boy scouts should allow girls in. Why shouldn't they? The girl scouts let boys in. The girl scouts don't discriminate randomly and needlessly.
Saying that the boy scouts are stupid anyway doesn't really address the issue at hand. You're just trying to ignore it, in which case I don't know why you are in this thread.
|
On June 08 2012 20:03 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +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. So what if the KKK was a federally funded organization? Would that be OK with you?
Nope it wouldn't be okay. But I wouldn't be rallying to have the KKK allow blacks into their orginization(it would be completely asinine, no?) just because my money is going into it. That would sort of defeat the purpose of the KKK, wouldn't it.
Instead I would contact my representatives and let the know about the issue of where federal money is going, and if they didn't agree with me I'd vote in a new representative.
Edit: I'm glad I caught you in this completely ridiculous thought before you managed to edit it out of your post. Nice try though.
|
On June 07 2012 11:25 Elroi wrote:
wtf, were homosexuals banned from the scouts? I had no idea. That is of course stupid as all hell.
In the USA, not here in Sweden obviously.
|
On June 08 2012 20:08 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 20:03 DoubleReed wrote: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. So what if the KKK was a federally funded organization? Would that be OK with you? Nope it wouldn't be okay. But I wouldn't be rallying to have the KKK allow blacks into their orginization(it would be completely asinine, no?) just because my money is going into it. That would sort of defeat the purpose of the KKK, wouldn't it. Instead I would contact my representatives and let the know about the issue of where federal money is going, and if they didn't agree with me I'd vote in a new representative. Edit: I'm glad I caught you in this completely ridiculous thought before you managed to edit it out of your post. Nice try though.
No I just misread your point initially.
Well it's more of a "change or have your funding cut" thing. The Boy Scouts is under no obligation to be anti-gay or anti-atheist. If it wasn't publicly funded then no one would care, really.
I don't really care which happens, but it's ridiculous the way it is right now.
|
dont think gays should be allowed. Let the gays join the girls instead.
User was warned for this post
|
On June 07 2012 11:17 b0mBerMan wrote:
The initial reaction is still divided on this issue, going against a 105 year old no-gay policy on BSA. BSA officials are either on veehment opposition or lukewarm on this proposal, claiming that the tradition of the group should be held sacred.
Discrimination is sacred? What are these people? ^^
On June 08 2012 20:31 sertas wrote:
dont think gays should be allowed. Let the gays join the girls instead.
smartass
|
On June 07 2012 11:36 ThePiedPiper wrote:
As long as no raping occurs, im fine with anything. Second that stuff occurs, kick them out
What about murder? Is that ok?
I'm trying to be more random than you, but it's quite hard.
I don't think acceptance needs any bulletpoints. If you rape someone, no matter where, you're gonna get kicked out (unless maybe it's NAMBLA).
Every school doesn't need a policy that says "gays who rape others will be kicked out" ... I'm pretty sure it's quite common practice to fire any rapist.
|
On June 07 2012 11:36 ThePiedPiper wrote:
As long as no raping occurs, im fine with anything. Second that stuff occurs, kick them out
It may be difficult to grasp but the way you don't go around raping little "opposite sex" children just because you see them in your kid's/little brother's/nephew's/insert random family memeber here's kindergarten (and let's assume this is not 4chan and you actually don't want to do it), gay women and men don't go around raping children either just because they are the same sex as them.
Also by that logic every school in the US should be shut down as well because I clearly remember one or two occasions where male teachers molested girls and female teachers molested boys, so therefore every heterosexual teacher is perverted and should be kicked out.
|
|
|
On June 08 2012 20:31 sertas wrote:
dont think gays should be allowed. Let the gays join the girls instead.
What about black people? Should they be allowed in the boyscouts? Or should they be forced to join the girls?
|
no
BTW the lack of adult men wanting to be Scoutmasters is mostly because they don't want to be seen as pedophiles , same reason as to why there are fewer and fewer male primary school teachers.Media keeps overhyping the pedophilia issue.
|
On June 07 2012 11:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:
The highest ranks of adult leadership of boyscouting tend to be highly conservative, but people lower on the chain have been dancing around them for awhile. The troop i was in had a openly gay scout, and we didn't kick him out, as long as he kept of councils radar, we were fine with it.
Not all boyscouts are like the senior adult leaders, and neither are all of the younger adult leaders.
I think this might be the best "sollution" anyway. Most local scout groups should not care about the pious leadership, and instead bend the rules to include everyone in their community. It's gonna be really unintuitive to weed out certain children in a group of friends, just because they don't consider faith to be a part of their life. No *real* leader promoting any form of group activity, and wanting the best for the members, would do any different.
|
What I'm wondering is why any homosexual/atheist etc. would even want to join a clearly homophobic, bigoted organisation to begin with.
I mean it's a good thing to try to make changes for the better (and the fact that 26% of you oppose it kind of makes me sad, but I guess those are mainly Americans, to whom ridiculous stuff like this is still a pressing social issue, lol), but maybe it would be better to start something new, with less of a history of exclusion.
|
On June 08 2012 22:16 Starshaped wrote:
What I'm wondering is why any homosexual/atheist etc. would even want to join a clearly homophobic, bigoted organisation to begin with.
I mean it's a good thing to try to make changes for the better (and the fact that 26% of you oppose it kind of makes me sad, but I guess those are mainly Americans, to whom ridiculous stuff like this is still a pressing social issue, lol), but maybe it would be better to start something new, with less of a history of exclusion.
I was kind of wondering the same thing myself, though if I had to speculate, I would say it has something to do with breaking down barriers. The boy scouts, I think, are a pretty conservative icon in the united states, even if they don't get much attention any more. So getting them to remove a "105 year old rule" seems like a big step forward for gays?
I don't know, I voted yes.
|
On June 08 2012 21:43 ErAsc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 20:31 sertas wrote:
dont think gays should be allowed. Let the gays join the girls instead. What about black people? Should they be allowed in the boyscouts? Or should they be forced to join the girls?
no that doesnt even make any sense. Let black male people be in BOY scouts obviously. They are people like evreone else.
|
On June 08 2012 22:30 sertas wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 21:43 ErAsc2 wrote:On June 08 2012 20:31 sertas wrote:
dont think gays should be allowed. Let the gays join the girls instead. What about black people? Should they be allowed in the boyscouts? Or should they be forced to join the girls? no that doesnt even make any sense. Let black male people be in BOY scouts obviously. They are people like evreone else.
So you're saying gay males are not boys?
|
On June 08 2012 22:31 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 22:30 sertas wrote:On June 08 2012 21:43 ErAsc2 wrote:On June 08 2012 20:31 sertas wrote:
dont think gays should be allowed. Let the gays join the girls instead. What about black people? Should they be allowed in the boyscouts? Or should they be forced to join the girls? no that doesnt even make any sense. Let black male people be in BOY scouts obviously. They are people like evreone else. So you're saying gay males are not boys?
they are boys but they are feminine boys. So let them join girls scouts.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On June 08 2012 22:41 sertas wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 22:31 Zaros wrote:On June 08 2012 22:30 sertas wrote:On June 08 2012 21:43 ErAsc2 wrote:On June 08 2012 20:31 sertas wrote:
dont think gays should be allowed. Let the gays join the girls instead. What about black people? Should they be allowed in the boyscouts? Or should they be forced to join the girls? no that doesnt even make any sense. Let black male people be in BOY scouts obviously. They are people like evreone else. So you're saying gay males are not boys? they are boys but they are feminine boys. So let them join girls scouts.
How to respond to that..., i will just say no they are not, otherwise im going to end up insulting you quite badly.
|
On June 08 2012 22:50 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 22:41 sertas wrote:On June 08 2012 22:31 Zaros wrote:On June 08 2012 22:30 sertas wrote:On June 08 2012 21:43 ErAsc2 wrote:On June 08 2012 20:31 sertas wrote:
dont think gays should be allowed. Let the gays join the girls instead. What about black people? Should they be allowed in the boyscouts? Or should they be forced to join the girls? no that doesnt even make any sense. Let black male people be in BOY scouts obviously. They are people like evreone else. So you're saying gay males are not boys? they are boys but they are feminine boys. So let them join girls scouts. How to respond to that..., i will just say no they are not, otherwise im going to end up insulting you quite badly.
you can have your opinion.
|
On June 08 2012 22:41 sertas wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 22:31 Zaros wrote:On June 08 2012 22:30 sertas wrote:On June 08 2012 21:43 ErAsc2 wrote:On June 08 2012 20:31 sertas wrote:
dont think gays should be allowed. Let the gays join the girls instead. What about black people? Should they be allowed in the boyscouts? Or should they be forced to join the girls? no that doesnt even make any sense. Let black male people be in BOY scouts obviously. They are people like evreone else. So you're saying gay males are not boys? they are boys but they are feminine boys. So let them join girls scouts.
Why. Gay people aren't necessarily more feminine. Thats a stereotype.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
