|
On June 12 2012 10:13 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 10:11 diophan wrote:On June 12 2012 10:08 hzflank wrote:On June 12 2012 05:59 Zaqwert wrote:
Private organizations should be allowed to have whatever membership rules they want.
If you don't agree with them, then don't join them or support them. A lot of people don't support the boy scouts anymore because of their membership rules.
That's freedom. By that logic it would be okay if the boy scouts did not allow black members. Yes for some people apparently freedom means an organization that receives a bunch of money from the federal government can be as bigoted as possible. Does it really matter if they receive money from the government? I could setup my own business and it would be a private organisation (100% owned by me) and not receive any federal funding. I am not completely sure about the law regarding this is various US states, but here in the UK it would be illegal for my business to consider a person's sexuality (or race, etc) when hiring them.
The same applies in the US, but in this situation they're not hiring them as employees. I don't agree that they should be allowed to discriminate against gay people in either case but I was just replying to someone who acted like the government shouldn't stop funding them because they are discriminating.
|
On June 07 2012 11:42 SpunXtainz wrote:
I think it is a dangerous step.
Apart from some of the other points raised here, scouts is supposed to be a masculine pasttime, where men prepare themselves for life. Allowing a feminine person to lead them...
hahaha that funny because my mom (single mom) ran our BS group cause all the men either weren't around or was to busy working. or some dads couldnt be arse to organize and run a group of kids. so instead my mom took over for a few years.
|
On June 12 2012 10:27 integrity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 11:42 SpunXtainz wrote:
I think it is a dangerous step.
Apart from some of the other points raised here, scouts is supposed to be a masculine pasttime, where men prepare themselves for life. Allowing a feminine person to lead them... hahaha that funny because my mom (single mom) ran our BS group cause all the men either weren't around or was to busy working. or some dads couldnt be arse to organize and run a group of kids. so instead my mom took over for a few years.
I'm glad you quoted that it's hilarious. I guess this guy knows different gay people than I do, since I do no strength training and sit around playing starcraft and some of my gay friends are pretty ripped and masculine.
|
On June 10 2012 04:55 heishe wrote:
How are 25% of all people voting no on this?
Why is anybody voting yes? How can you argue that a private organization should be forced, by the government, to let in members that clearly violate their core beliefs?
|
On June 12 2012 10:57 Sweeper8 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2012 04:55 heishe wrote:
How are 25% of all people voting no on this? Why is anybody voting yes? How can you argue that a private organization should be forced, by the government, to let in members that clearly violate their core beliefs?
Because the government is paying for it...?
|
On June 12 2012 10:57 Sweeper8 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2012 04:55 heishe wrote:
How are 25% of all people voting no on this? Why is anybody voting yes? How can you argue that a private organization should be forced, by the government, to let in members that clearly violate their core beliefs?
Literacy fail? You obviously didn't read the article of a couple paragraphs or the title of the poll I guess?
|
On June 12 2012 10:57 Sweeper8 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2012 04:55 heishe wrote:
How are 25% of all people voting no on this? Why is anybody voting yes? How can you argue that a private organization should be forced, by the government, to let in members that clearly violate their core beliefs?
This isn't about the government forcing BSA to allow gay members. The resolution is about BSA themselves deciding whether or not they want to allow gay members.
|
On June 12 2012 10:57 Sweeper8 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2012 04:55 heishe wrote:
How are 25% of all people voting no on this? Why is anybody voting yes? How can you argue that a private organization should be forced, by the government, to let in members that clearly violate their core beliefs?
The poll on the first page says nothing about forcing them to do anything.
"Poll: Should BSA allow Gay Scout leaders and members?" It is a personal opinion poll that reflects a much larger intolerant minority than many expected on TL. Most people in this thread agree that private organizations should be able to set their own standards and if they object at all it is because of the extreme number of "favors" the BSA get from the government (for example: hundreds of military workers and acres of land rented from the military for their jamboree for one dollar).
|
On June 08 2012 22:56 sertas wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 22:52 Undrass wrote: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. Why. Gay people aren't necessarily more feminine. Thats a stereotype. so your saying that they arent more feminine then straight people? ok thats why ive never seen straight people wear the stuff that gay people do. Women clothes and speaking in a very feminine voice. My english isnt good enough to explain how it sounds. In general they are definently more feminine then straight people thats for sure.
No your just an idiot. People where certain clothes and other accessories to make a statement , not because they are feminine . Yes some are but that doesn't encompass all of the gay community . Take your brainwashed predjuiced garbage and get educated.
|
On June 07 2012 11:42 micronesia wrote:
And I think the counter-point is that we allow heterosexual female leaders without over-worrying that they will rape the boys, so why not allow homosexual male leaders on the same terms?
In Unated states, women can not rape. You didn`t knew, did you?
|
At first I thought this was a good idea. But after thinking about it more I am a little bit against it, simply because it can make things really awkward.
Lets give the following scenario.
You are in a scout troop and one of the other scouts is gay, and starts to like you. It puts you both in a very awkward situation if he makes it clear, which is what moving away from a don't ask don't tell policy would do.
Now while I think that most gay guys stick to other gay guys and don't try to hit on those who are straight, exceptions do occur and that would remove some of the safety from the boy scouts. What if the guy was really weird, what could you do? You couldn't easily kick him out? Most women can attest to how strange and creepy some guys come off, no matter how unintentional.
I think "don't ask don't tell" would be a better policy, and a separate group should be set up for the support of young gay kids. An outright ban on gay kids would be terrible, but I don't think that it should be allowed to be displayed in the boy scouts, just like in the military.
I realize I take the less popular stance on the internet, and I may come off as a bit of a bigot, but believe me, that is far from the truth. I would simply rather have your sexual preference stay out of the boy scouts entirely.
|
On June 13 2012 00:43 Blurry wrote:
At first I thought this was a good idea. But after thinking about it more I am a little bit against it, simply because it can make things really awkward.
Lets give the following scenario.
You are in a scout troop and one of the other scouts is gay, and starts to like you. It puts you both in a very awkward situation if he makes it clear, which is what moving away from a don't ask don't tell policy would do.
Now while I think that most gay guys stick to other gay guys and don't try to hit on those who are straight, exceptions do occur and that would remove some of the safety from the boy scouts. What if the guy was really weird, what could you do? You couldn't easily kick him out? Most women can attest to how strange and creepy some guys come off, no matter how unintentional.
I think "don't ask don't tell" would be a better policy, and a separate group should be set up for the support of young gay kids. An outright ban on gay kids would be terrible, but I don't think that it should be allowed to be displayed in the boy scouts, just like in the military.
I realize I take the less popular stance on the internet, and I may come off as a bit of a bigot, but believe me, that is far from the truth. I would simply rather have your sexual preference stay out of the boy scouts entirely.
You come off as a bigot because you are a bigot. I always think it's funny that straight dudes automatically assume that gay dudes will be attracted to them. Spoiler Alert: Very few gay men are ever attracted to straight men.
|
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
LoL. This is such a weird standpoint. It's like "yeah I had a female teacher in my school as a child. All of the boys were afraid that they'd be raped, and the parents were very concerned when we were going for a school trip. After a while it was decided that heterosexual female teachers would not be allowed to teach boys, as the risk of rape was too high.."
Such utter bullshit.
I'm not gay myself, but saying that gays = pedophiles is ignorance at its finest.
I don't understand why sexuality has anything to do with scouts.
|
On June 13 2012 00:50 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 00:43 Blurry wrote:
At first I thought this was a good idea. But after thinking about it more I am a little bit against it, simply because it can make things really awkward.
Lets give the following scenario.
You are in a scout troop and one of the other scouts is gay, and starts to like you. It puts you both in a very awkward situation if he makes it clear, which is what moving away from a don't ask don't tell policy would do.
Now while I think that most gay guys stick to other gay guys and don't try to hit on those who are straight, exceptions do occur and that would remove some of the safety from the boy scouts. What if the guy was really weird, what could you do? You couldn't easily kick him out? Most women can attest to how strange and creepy some guys come off, no matter how unintentional.
I think "don't ask don't tell" would be a better policy, and a separate group should be set up for the support of young gay kids. An outright ban on gay kids would be terrible, but I don't think that it should be allowed to be displayed in the boy scouts, just like in the military.
I realize I take the less popular stance on the internet, and I may come off as a bit of a bigot, but believe me, that is far from the truth. I would simply rather have your sexual preference stay out of the boy scouts entirely. You come off as a bigot because you are a bigot. I always think it's funny that straight dudes automatically assume that gay dudes will be attracted to them. Spoiler Alert: Very few gay men are ever attracted to straight men.
That makes no sense at all?
|
On June 13 2012 00:43 Blurry wrote:
At first I thought this was a good idea. But after thinking about it more I am a little bit against it, simply because it can make things really awkward.
Lets give the following scenario.
You are in a scout troop and one of the other scouts is gay, and starts to like you. It puts you both in a very awkward situation if he makes it clear, which is what moving away from a don't ask don't tell policy would do.
Now while I think that most gay guys stick to other gay guys and don't try to hit on those who are straight, exceptions do occur and that would remove some of the safety from the boy scouts. What if the guy was really weird, what could you do? You couldn't easily kick him out? Most women can attest to how strange and creepy some guys come off, no matter how unintentional.
I think "don't ask don't tell" would be a better policy, and a separate group should be set up for the support of young gay kids. An outright ban on gay kids would be terrible, but I don't think that it should be allowed to be displayed in the boy scouts, just like in the military.
I realize I take the less popular stance on the internet, and I may come off as a bit of a bigot, but believe me, that is far from the truth. I would simply rather have your sexual preference stay out of the boy scouts entirely.
What? What if you were attracted to a lesbian? Who the hell cares? Is that really so frightening and scary you have to ban gay kids? Wtf is wrong with you? What an immature response.
Are you that goddamn frightened of being hit on by a gay guy? Jesus you're homophobic.
|
On June 13 2012 00:43 Blurry wrote:
At first I thought this was a good idea. But after thinking about it more I am a little bit against it, simply because it can make things really awkward.
Lets give the following scenario.
You are in a scout troop and one of the other scouts is gay, and starts to like you. It puts you both in a very awkward situation if he makes it clear, which is what moving away from a don't ask don't tell policy would do.
Now while I think that most gay guys stick to other gay guys and don't try to hit on those who are straight, exceptions do occur and that would remove some of the safety from the boy scouts. What if the guy was really weird, what could you do? You couldn't easily kick him out? Most women can attest to how strange and creepy some guys come off, no matter how unintentional.
I think "don't ask don't tell" would be a better policy, and a separate group should be set up for the support of young gay kids. An outright ban on gay kids would be terrible, but I don't think that it should be allowed to be displayed in the boy scouts, just like in the military.
I realize I take the less popular stance on the internet, and I may come off as a bit of a bigot, but believe me, that is far from the truth. I would simply rather have your sexual preference stay out of the boy scouts entirely.
I don't know if it would really be any more awkward than being in a scout troop and having there be a member or two that you just don't get along with, or even fight with. I can't speak for anyone else, but personally I would rather have to deal with a gay kid liking me than a bully, or group of bullies trying to start stuff with me all the time.
|
United States24803 Posts
On June 12 2012 18:38 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 11:42 micronesia wrote:
And I think the counter-point is that we allow heterosexual female leaders without over-worrying that they will rape the boys, so why not allow homosexual male leaders on the same terms? In Unated states, women can not rape. You didn`t knew, did you?
A woman cannot be charged with statutory rape against a young male?
|
On June 13 2012 00:55 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 00:43 Blurry wrote:
At first I thought this was a good idea. But after thinking about it more I am a little bit against it, simply because it can make things really awkward.
Lets give the following scenario.
You are in a scout troop and one of the other scouts is gay, and starts to like you. It puts you both in a very awkward situation if he makes it clear, which is what moving away from a don't ask don't tell policy would do.
Now while I think that most gay guys stick to other gay guys and don't try to hit on those who are straight, exceptions do occur and that would remove some of the safety from the boy scouts. What if the guy was really weird, what could you do? You couldn't easily kick him out? Most women can attest to how strange and creepy some guys come off, no matter how unintentional.
I think "don't ask don't tell" would be a better policy, and a separate group should be set up for the support of young gay kids. An outright ban on gay kids would be terrible, but I don't think that it should be allowed to be displayed in the boy scouts, just like in the military.
I realize I take the less popular stance on the internet, and I may come off as a bit of a bigot, but believe me, that is far from the truth. I would simply rather have your sexual preference stay out of the boy scouts entirely. What? What if you were attracted to a lesbian? Who the hell cares? Is that really so frightening and scary you have to ban gay kids? Wtf is wrong with you? What an immature response.
How would that be considered immature? I'm not worried about getting hit on, I'm not worried about my kids getting hit on, it doesn't bother me. But it does change the entire dynamic of a boy scout troop if two of the members start dating, that does make it awkward. Why not just keep it don't ask, don't tell. You're not getting discriminated against, you can still join, just don't discuss your sexuality with your friends in the troop. I'm sorry you can't see my point of view, but I'm not homophobic. I just don't think that BSA is the right direction for the support of those struggling with coming out, or already being gay.
And for the record, I ran into something similar while in a fraternity. Trust me, things got weird really fast. A brother openly expressing feelings over another brother really destroyed some of the bond that we had with each other, not because we were against having gay guys in our fraternity, he made it clear he was gay when he pledged, but because it drifted away from being a group of friends when one of the members started to make passes at the other member. While it may not happen often IT DOES HAPPEN, so why not just keep a policy of non-disclosure.
But of course, from what I've seen on the internet, anyone expresses anything remotely anti-gay they are automatically assholes. This is a discussion board, meet my points with discussion, not with "You're a homophobic prick".
|
On June 13 2012 00:55 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 00:43 Blurry wrote:
At first I thought this was a good idea. But after thinking about it more I am a little bit against it, simply because it can make things really awkward.
Lets give the following scenario.
You are in a scout troop and one of the other scouts is gay, and starts to like you. It puts you both in a very awkward situation if he makes it clear, which is what moving away from a don't ask don't tell policy would do.
Now while I think that most gay guys stick to other gay guys and don't try to hit on those who are straight, exceptions do occur and that would remove some of the safety from the boy scouts. What if the guy was really weird, what could you do? You couldn't easily kick him out? Most women can attest to how strange and creepy some guys come off, no matter how unintentional.
I think "don't ask don't tell" would be a better policy, and a separate group should be set up for the support of young gay kids. An outright ban on gay kids would be terrible, but I don't think that it should be allowed to be displayed in the boy scouts, just like in the military.
I realize I take the less popular stance on the internet, and I may come off as a bit of a bigot, but believe me, that is far from the truth. I would simply rather have your sexual preference stay out of the boy scouts entirely. I don't know if it would really be any more awkward than being in a scout troop and having there be a member or two that you just don't get along with, or even fight with. I can't speak for anyone else, but personally I would rather have to deal with a gay kid liking me than a bully, or group of bullies trying to start stuff with me all the time.
No, the latter situation is obviously worse, but its not like the latter situation is condoned either.
|
United States24803 Posts
On June 13 2012 01:09 Blurry wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 00:55 DoubleReed wrote:On June 13 2012 00:43 Blurry wrote:
At first I thought this was a good idea. But after thinking about it more I am a little bit against it, simply because it can make things really awkward.
Lets give the following scenario.
You are in a scout troop and one of the other scouts is gay, and starts to like you. It puts you both in a very awkward situation if he makes it clear, which is what moving away from a don't ask don't tell policy would do.
Now while I think that most gay guys stick to other gay guys and don't try to hit on those who are straight, exceptions do occur and that would remove some of the safety from the boy scouts. What if the guy was really weird, what could you do? You couldn't easily kick him out? Most women can attest to how strange and creepy some guys come off, no matter how unintentional.
I think "don't ask don't tell" would be a better policy, and a separate group should be set up for the support of young gay kids. An outright ban on gay kids would be terrible, but I don't think that it should be allowed to be displayed in the boy scouts, just like in the military.
I realize I take the less popular stance on the internet, and I may come off as a bit of a bigot, but believe me, that is far from the truth. I would simply rather have your sexual preference stay out of the boy scouts entirely. What? What if you were attracted to a lesbian? Who the hell cares? Is that really so frightening and scary you have to ban gay kids? Wtf is wrong with you? What an immature response. How would that be considered immature? I'm not worried about getting hit on, I'm not worried about my kids getting hit on, it doesn't bother me. But it does change the entire dynamic of a boy scout troop if two of the members start dating, that does make it awkward. Why not just keep it don't ask, don't tell. You're not getting discriminated against, you can still join, just don't discuss your sexuality with your friends in the troop. I'm sorry you can't see my point of view, but I'm not homophobic. I just don't think that BSA is the right direction for the support of those struggling with coming out, or already being gay. And for the record, I ran into something similar while in a fraternity. Trust me, things got weird really fast. A brother openly expressing feelings over another brother really destroyed some of the bond that we had with each other, not because we were against having gay guys in our fraternity, he made it clear he was gay when he pledged, but because it drifted away from being a group of friends when one of the members started to make passes at the other member. While it may not happen often IT DOES HAPPEN, so why not just keep a policy of non-disclosure. But of course, from what I've seen on the internet, anyone expresses anything remotely anti-gay they are automatically assholes. This is a discussion board, meet my points with discussion, not with "You're a homophobic prick".
How about instead of a "don't ask, don't tell" policy (which is a double standard anyway) we just make it against policy for scouts to do the things that you are actually worried about? You don't seem to be worried about an openly gay scout being in the troop; you are worried about a scout conducting certain behavior.
Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
