On June 07 2012 12:46 Boiler Bandsman wrote: I hate to wade into the self-righteous circle-jerk, but the OP's facts appear to be inaccurate. There is no prohibition on gay Scouts, only on gay leaders. This policy has been set up to protect the boys, and for no other reason. It does NOT spring from any judgement about the morality of homosexuality. Scouting has long taken the position that even one boy harmed is too many, and the policies in place to protect the Scouts are much much broader than the much-publicized prohibition on gay leaders. Two-deep leadership, background checks, and never-alone rules are examples which are less talked-about but are important to understanding Scouting's overall approach.
With regards to atheism, Scouting's stated objective as a private, charitable, non-profit organization is to prepare young men to be men of character and value. It is the OPINION (which they have every right to hold as a private organization) of the Boy Scouts that there should be a higher power that Scouts hold to. Hence the presence of God in the Oath. It doesn't require any specific religion, but it is their belief that a higher moral code is required to fulfill their mission as stated above.
Boiler, assumimg homosexual scout leaders would be more likely to harm the boys than heterosexual scout leaders is certainly a huge judgment of morality. Why would you assume that a gay person might harm the boys? It's a prejudiced view, and you may have your reasons for doing so, but it's prejudice regardless.
The Boy Scouts should be free to do what they want, and profess their faith to God if they want. But they can't do so and also want to take Federal funding at the same time.
However, I can somehow also understand those who said no. It's a group of boys and men who want to roll in the dirt and imagine themselves as manly, manly hunter-gatherers in their backyard. They want to do this with other manly, manly men and don't want anyone who doesn't meet their manly, manly qualifications to be part of their cool group.
The only reason this is a big deal is because BSA is already a large organization of dudes camping in their gardens, and we hold large organizations accountable for things like this. I'm sure if there were no BSA and the entire nation of dudes went camping and didn't want gay guys on their trip it wouldn't be as big a deal.
(I'm obviously exagerrating here)
That's not so much exaggeration as outright mockery. You can think what you want but that's not a description of the BSA. It's a caricature.
What I find extremely compelling, is that 25% (right now) of TL users who voted, said no... I feel like some people forget it's 2012, and not 1950... I think it's the general fear that being homosexual = attracted to everything with a penis... Though I personally have no first hand person knowledge (as in myself) a friend of mine who is gay always makes the joke to me about how stupid the average guy is, laughing about how they flatter themselves thinking all gay men are attracted to them.
So, like someone previously mentioned... If we aren't allowing gays on the basis of the possibility of molesting, female works should not be allowed for the possibility of raping... Seems rather simple, logically.
On June 07 2012 12:04 Thenerf wrote: Remember that it is a CHRISTAIN organization.
I feel like I've heard this before (I've even read that it was funded by Christian organizations at the start, and at other times in the past) but I don't recall seeing proof that the BSA was actually a Christian organization per se (as opposed to merely religious).
Source?
The bullshit video talks about how it was sort of taken over by the Mormons later on, but I don't think it's officially Christian. It is officially bigoted though.
It's officially a Patriotic organization, so it gets federal funding.
Federal funding should not be issued to discriminatory organizations. They lose that right to discriminate when they receive public funding. Either give up the public funding, or stop discriminating.
I think that's a very good point- they shouldn't have it both ways: Either they're a private organization and they can do as they please (but they need to fund themselves or have private sponsors)... or they can opt to receive public (e.g. federal) funding but not discriminate in the way they're currently doing. I don't want my tax dollars necessarily going to them (and I'm sure many atheists and homosexuals who are aware of this prejudice feel the same way).
I just watched the posted Penn and Teller episode as well, and I strongly recommend it to everyone
On June 07 2012 12:46 Boiler Bandsman wrote: I hate to wade into the self-righteous circle-jerk, but the OP's facts appear to be inaccurate. There is no prohibition on gay Scouts, only on gay leaders. This policy has been set up to protect the boys, and for no other reason. It does NOT spring from any judgement about the morality of homosexuality. Scouting has long taken the position that even one boy harmed is too many, and the policies in place to protect the Scouts are much much broader than the much-publicized prohibition on gay leaders. Two-deep leadership, background checks, and never-alone rules are examples which are less talked-about but are important to understanding Scouting's overall approach.
With regards to atheism, Scouting's stated objective as a private, charitable, non-profit organization is to prepare young men to be men of character and value. It is the OPINION (which they have every right to hold as a private organization) of the Boy Scouts that there should be a higher power that Scouts hold to. Hence the presence of God in the Oath. It doesn't require any specific religion, but it is their belief that a higher moral code is required to fulfill their mission as stated above.
Boiler, assumimg homosexual scout leaders would be more likely to harm the boys than heterosexual scout leaders is certainly a huge judgment of morality. Why would you assume that a gay person might harm the boys? It's a prejudiced view, and you may have your reasons for doing so, but it's prejudice regardless.
The Boy Scouts should be free to do what they want, and profess their faith to God if they want. But they can't do so and also want to take Federal funding at the same time.
Sexuality of a person and the sex of another person can't exactly be separated when discussing sexual attraction between them. You should take the word harm to mean even "have consensual sex with", as they are minors/children and unable to consent.
Can we have a couple more options in the poll? We need a couple specifying which we would prefer, but admitting that it isn't our decision. The Boy Scouts are a private organization, and should be allowed to regulate themselves.
If I were in charge, I'd allow homosexuals, but the thing is, I'm not in charge and I must respect their (poor) decision.
On June 07 2012 12:46 Boiler Bandsman wrote: I hate to wade into the self-righteous circle-jerk, but the OP's facts appear to be inaccurate. There is no prohibition on gay Scouts, only on gay leaders. This policy has been set up to protect the boys, and for no other reason. It does NOT spring from any judgement about the morality of homosexuality. Scouting has long taken the position that even one boy harmed is too many, and the policies in place to protect the Scouts are much much broader than the much-publicized prohibition on gay leaders. Two-deep leadership, background checks, and never-alone rules are examples which are less talked-about but are important to understanding Scouting's overall approach.
With regards to atheism, Scouting's stated objective as a private, charitable, non-profit organization is to prepare young men to be men of character and value. It is the OPINION (which they have every right to hold as a private organization) of the Boy Scouts that there should be a higher power that Scouts hold to. Hence the presence of God in the Oath. It doesn't require any specific religion, but it is their belief that a higher moral code is required to fulfill their mission as stated above.
Boiler, assumimg homosexual scout leaders would be more likely to harm the boys than heterosexual scout leaders is certainly a huge judgment of morality. Why would you assume that a gay person might harm the boys? It's a prejudiced view, and you may have your reasons for doing so, but it's prejudice regardless.
The Boy Scouts should be free to do what they want, and profess their faith to God if they want. But they can't do so and also want to take Federal funding at the same time.
Sexuality of a person and the sex of another person can't exactly be separated when discussing sexual attraction between them. You should take the word harm to mean even "have consensual sex with", as they are minors/children and unable to consent.
Yeah, because as a straight man I often fuck under age girls.
Lets not even think about the plight of the children now that schools have both male and female teachers.
On June 07 2012 12:46 Boiler Bandsman wrote: I hate to wade into the self-righteous circle-jerk, but the OP's facts appear to be inaccurate. There is no prohibition on gay Scouts, only on gay leaders. This policy has been set up to protect the boys, and for no other reason. It does NOT spring from any judgement about the morality of homosexuality. Scouting has long taken the position that even one boy harmed is too many, and the policies in place to protect the Scouts are much much broader than the much-publicized prohibition on gay leaders. Two-deep leadership, background checks, and never-alone rules are examples which are less talked-about but are important to understanding Scouting's overall approach.
With regards to atheism, Scouting's stated objective as a private, charitable, non-profit organization is to prepare young men to be men of character and value. It is the OPINION (which they have every right to hold as a private organization) of the Boy Scouts that there should be a higher power that Scouts hold to. Hence the presence of God in the Oath. It doesn't require any specific religion, but it is their belief that a higher moral code is required to fulfill their mission as stated above.
Boiler, assumimg homosexual scout leaders would be more likely to harm the boys than heterosexual scout leaders is certainly a huge judgment of morality. Why would you assume that a gay person might harm the boys? It's a prejudiced view, and you may have your reasons for doing so, but it's prejudice regardless.
The Boy Scouts should be free to do what they want, and profess their faith to God if they want. But they can't do so and also want to take Federal funding at the same time.
Is it not logical to assume that a man is more of a risk to abuse a teenage girl than a woman? It does not equate to accusing all men of being abusers of girls. But it is a logical, defensible conclusion to make, that is not rooted in homophobia or prejudice as people so often accuse. Bearing in mind that even a single instance is utterly unacceptable, Scouting has taken dozens of steps to absolutely minimize the risks, of which this is only one. This sort of context is important to anyone who honestly seeks to understand the motivations of the other side instead of just calling "bigot" on the other side.
On June 07 2012 12:04 Thenerf wrote: Remember that it is a CHRISTAIN organization.
I feel like I've heard this before (I've even read that it was funded by Christian organizations at the start, and at other times in the past) but I don't recall seeing proof that the BSA was actually a Christian organization per se (as opposed to merely religious).
Source?
The bullshit video talks about how it was sort of taken over by the Mormons later on, but I don't think it's officially Christian. It is officially bigoted though.
It's officially a Patriotic organization, so it gets federal funding.
Federal funding should not be issued to discriminatory organizations. They lose that right to discriminate when they receive public funding. Either give up the public funding, or stop discriminating.
I think that's a very good point- they shouldn't have it both ways: Either they're a private organization and they can do as they please (but they need to fund themselves or have private sponsors)... or they can opt to receive public (e.g. federal) funding but not discriminate in the way they're currently doing. I don't want my tax dollars necessarily going to them (and I'm sure many atheists and homosexuals who are aware of this prejudice feel the same way).
I just watched the posted Penn and Teller episode as well, and I strongly recommend it to everyone
EDIT: Any identity can be a Girl Scout- even boys.
DarkPlasmaBall dropping the knowledge bombs.
::flexes::
I could not find reference to federal funding, unless i missed something, troops can be funded by public organizations such as schools, but the government does not write a check to the scouts to spend as they wish. A school can charter a troop, but that does not mean they are required to fund them, and in fact it often goes the other way, when a troop shuts down, all of said troops assets are given to the charter organization, but the charter organization is not a source of funding for any troop i am aware of. If a public organization is chartering a troop, and puts money into said troop (which they should not beyond start up funds) it comes out of their pre set budget, they do not get extra money to spend on the troop they are chartering.
On June 07 2012 12:58 JitnikoVi wrote: how serious are the 'boy scouts' in the states? in canada they are near nonexistant... as far as im aware anways
Well, when we want to say something is serious, we say "this ain't the boy scouts."
On June 07 2012 12:58 JitnikoVi wrote: how serious are the 'boy scouts' in the states? in canada they are near nonexistant... as far as im aware anways
Last I heard, the number was somewhere around 1 in 5 boys will have some form of Scouting contact/experience. Obviously many don't join the organization or stay long, but that gives you some idea anyway.
On June 07 2012 12:58 JitnikoVi wrote: how serious are the 'boy scouts' in the states? in canada they are near nonexistant... as far as im aware anways
Well, when we want to say something is serious, we say "this ain't the boy scouts."
Up here in Can'ada, we say "this ain't floor hockey".
On June 07 2012 12:58 JitnikoVi wrote: how serious are the 'boy scouts' in the states? in canada they are near nonexistant... as far as im aware anways
Well, when we want to say something is serious, we say "this ain't the boy scouts."
Up here in Can'ada, we say "this ain't floor hockey".
how serious are the 'boy scouts' in the states? in canada they are near nonexistant... as far as im aware anways
2.7 million youth members and another 1 million in adult scouting like venture scouting. so 3.7 million + leaders. based on the 2007 census that would mean a little more than 7% of all males under 18 are Scouts.
However, I can somehow also understand those who said no. It's a group of boys and men who want to roll in the dirt and imagine themselves as manly, manly hunter-gatherers in their backyard. They want to do this with other manly, manly men and don't want anyone who doesn't meet their manly, manly qualifications to be part of their cool group.
The only reason this is a big deal is because BSA is already a large organization of dudes camping in their gardens, and we hold large organizations accountable for things like this. I'm sure if there were no BSA and the entire nation of dudes went camping and didn't want gay guys on their trip it wouldn't be as big a deal.
(I'm obviously exagerrating here)
That's not so much exaggeration as outright mockery. You can think what you want but that's not a description of the BSA. It's a caricature.
I don't think it is, because I used to be a boy scout (but not in the US) myself.
Anyway even though the way I said it is stupid, I was actually saying that I don't see why the BSA is receiving so much shit for having an opinion and enforcing their own rules since they are a private organization (I think). That doesn't mean I agree with their rules but hey it's their group of dudes not mine.
On June 07 2012 12:04 Thenerf wrote: Remember that it is a CHRISTAIN organization.
I feel like I've heard this before (I've even read that it was funded by Christian organizations at the start, and at other times in the past) but I don't recall seeing proof that the BSA was actually a Christian organization per se (as opposed to merely religious).
Source?
The bullshit video talks about how it was sort of taken over by the Mormons later on, but I don't think it's officially Christian. It is officially bigoted though.
It's officially a Patriotic organization, so it gets federal funding.
Federal funding should not be issued to discriminatory organizations. They lose that right to discriminate when they receive public funding. Either give up the public funding, or stop discriminating.
I think that's a very good point- they shouldn't have it both ways: Either they're a private organization and they can do as they please (but they need to fund themselves or have private sponsors)... or they can opt to receive public (e.g. federal) funding but not discriminate in the way they're currently doing. I don't want my tax dollars necessarily going to them (and I'm sure many atheists and homosexuals who are aware of this prejudice feel the same way).
I just watched the posted Penn and Teller episode as well, and I strongly recommend it to everyone
On June 07 2012 12:31 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On June 07 2012 11:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On June 07 2012 11:38 Sofestafont wrote: Also don't allow atheists I believe.
No homosexuals, atheists/ agnostics, and no girls:
EDIT: Any identity can be a Girl Scout- even boys.
DarkPlasmaBall dropping the knowledge bombs.
::flexes::
I could not find reference to federal funding, unless i missed something, troops can be funded by public organizations such as schools, but the government does not write a check to the scouts to spend as they wish. A school can charter a troop, but that does not mean they are required to fund them, and in fact it often goes the other way, when a troop shuts down, all of said troops assets are given to the charter organization, but the charter organization is not a source of funding for any troop i am aware of. If a public organization is chartering a troop, and puts money into said troop (which they should not beyond start up funds) it comes out of their pre set budget, they do not get extra money to spend on the troop they are chartering.
The government indeed funds the BSA... towards the end of the Penn and Teller episode, many examples of how the funding was used and set up were explained (in pretty elaborate detail). I strongly recommend you check that out Something about it being covered as a Patriotic Group or something for funding, and that it gets to constantly rent out property and land for free or a single dollar instead of normal fees, etc.
EDIT: It starts at 19 minutes into the video Ends around 22 minutes.
Bumping the video because of importance (everyone should watch it all):
On June 07 2012 11:43 Damrak wrote: reminds me of the good ol times when blacks were only allowed to sit in the back of the bus.
What a stupid and ignorant comparison. Being homosexual is a choice, being born a specific color isn't.
Excuse me? Being homosexual is a choice? You ask the next homosexual person you see if they choose to be ridiculed by idiots and bigots like yourself. What a stupid and ignorant comment. Being an idiot is a choice, stop choosing it every time you think.
On June 07 2012 11:43 Damrak wrote: reminds me of the good ol times when blacks were only allowed to sit in the back of the bus.
What a stupid and ignorant comparison. Being homosexual is a choice, being born a specific color isn't.
Bull crap, being homosexual is not a choice any more than being black is, ie not at all. I appreciate that you are defending scouting, but please try to do it in a manner that makes scouting and its supporters look better, not worse.
EPT
