|
On June 07 2012 16:14 Abort Retry Fail wrote:
Europe has allowed gay marriage and prostitution centuries ago, while just approved gay marriage, and not yet with finality.
Europe has even Kopism and some oddball religion and we don't even allow atheists and gays in BSA.
Congrats America!
[citation needed]
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BxDMV.png)
Unless the number of countries in Europe has been severely reduced.. Also the first US State legalized same sex marriage in 2004. Now (if I'm not mistaken) it's legal in 7 of the states. That's actually more than the five countries I am aware of that have legalized same sex marriage in Europe.
(additional ellipsis for effect)
...
|
On June 07 2012 14:32 Zahir wrote:
I think this is a good proposal. There's really no argument against being inclusive. Any objection you might have to a gay scoutmaster applies equally to a straight one. There's no rule that says all homosexuals are effeminate, nor that all straight males are super masculine. In ancient Greece all of the manliest men around were at least a little gay.
What bothers me is where to draw the line. Because I see no reason not to extend the argument and rename it the unisex scouts of America and include girls. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I suspect it's a move the organization and probably American society isn't ready for. Tomgirls have yet to achieve the same level of organization as gays.
girls are fairly common and are allowed in boy scouts in australia. there were usually about 15-20% girls in our scouts group. its not a big deal.
|
On June 07 2012 16:09 Probe1 wrote:
Honestly, we don't have any legal right to deny the BSA its self governance. It does receive privileged to access school and government facilities, which is fine, but afaik it does not receive direct federal funding. If it did I would be of a different mind.
However, you'd think that the reductions in donations in 2006 (Including the long time and respected donor Pew Charitable Trusts) would be a wake up call that the world had changed. You would think Spielbergs resignation “I thought the Boy Scouts stood for equal opportunity, and I have consistently spoken out publicly and privately against intolerance and discrimination based on ethnic, religious, racial and sexual orientation…” would wake anyone still unaware. Or the litigation that continues to surround the discriminatory policies.
Even if they are constitutional, even if they are within your right to set it makes them no less abhorrent and no less wrong. This thread is fresh and renewed proof that the majority of public opinion is against discrimination against homosexuals. Eventually, maybe 50 years in the future or 5, the BSA will have to adapt to survive. Do you want it to be a reduction to a shell of its former existence that only reaches out to a handful when it used to bring opportunity to many? If they cannot abide by changing their policy against Christian homosexuals then eventually, they will disappear to time.
But overall point, the BSA can do what they want. And we'll call them bigoted for following medieval translations of hate infused in a book of love from god.
I for one would not want them to compromise on morals for the sake of staying relevant. They are not a business, trying to make money and expand. they are a largely volunteer organization sticking to their guns. if they fade away because of this, so be it.
This thread proves nothing, TL is not a good sample of anything except the SC community. Also, i don't know why we care what Spielberg thinks, he makes movies. I don't care about anything he has to say, unless I want some movie advice.
That last little jab was pretty cute. It also displays a lack of understanding, but that is not for here.
EDIT: Just saw he was involved with the scouts. I retract (for the most part; I don't know how he got involved or what he actually knows about its moral background) what I said. Nonetheless, he is still incorrect.
|
We simply won't agree on this, I wish you and the BSA the best of luck.
|
eagle scout here, been in scouts all my life.
yes!
edit: i can see the other side. scouts is all about tradition, rigidity and such. i like this troop-by-troop proposal
|
EDIT: he removed his post, I will remove the quote and my response.
We are getting the point where the discussion becomes the morality of homosexuality itself. That is NOT a discussion I am going to have here. Have a good day, and gl hf!
|
As a scout i did not know of this policy. The whole concept of scouts was teaching boy how to survive and be helpful to others. Being gay has nothing to do with this. In retrospect, I would think gay people would do more for the community since in general they are more passionate about their work. Still, this should be allowed since the overall good is being benefitted.
|
On June 07 2012 15:55 Introvert wrote:
This thread needs help. I've already stated my opinion on the matter, but we need to think some more about this. Whether or not being gay is a choice is irrelevant. The moral side of the Boy Scouts does not allow gays (officially, the BSA takes place largely on the local level, so I'm sure that in many cases gays are allowed). What matters in the BSA's ability to run themselves. They aren't actively seeking out gay scouts and kicking them out, but it's a rule. I don't understand why they can't manage themselves. These aren't terrorists threatening to kill all gays that attempt to join, they are a private organization and can do this. It is KIND OF like a restaurant reserving the right to refuse service to anyone. Next people will be saying that Churches should not be allowed to refuse performing a gay ceremony.
I don't understand what you are arguing. No one is forcing the BSA to change their silly rule and outdated viewpoints. They are choosing to do it themselves! lol, they are voting on whether or not to move forward. You need to justify why the BSA can't collectively decide that it wants to change its rules. Why are you so afraid of the BSA deciding to change their rules (rules which btw the majority of the country find wrong)?
|
I have just recently obtained the rank of Eagle Scout, and I have to say I am a proud member of the BSA, for providing me with chances to visit parts of the world I would have otherwise ignored. I'm just saying this because I'm also proud that a national counsel in Texas of all places decided to pass this resolution. Now I have no doubt money played a big factor into this decision, but in my heart and mind I find it reassuring that some of my friends in scouting: gay, atheist, agnostic, etc. will have the chance to be more greatly accepted. Boyscouts doesn't just teach you "manly" things, Boyscouts is about service to others, teamwork, perserverence, and other qualities that people need to help themselves later on in life. A wider range of people should be allowed to have the chance to learn these qualities, not just those who are straight, and monotheistic.
TL:DR
Awesome BSA letting more people in even though money is probably main reason.
Boyscouts isn't just for "manly" things, it teaches qualities that help a person succeed in life.
|
On June 07 2012 16:37 Introvert wrote:
EDIT: he removed his post, I will remove the quote and my response.
We are getting the point where the discussion becomes the morality of homosexuality itself. That is NOT a discussion I am going to have here. Have a good day, and gl hf!
I apologize that our dissenting opinions lead to conflict. gg
(I editing my post out originally due to the edit you added to the one above it. I decided it was poor taste to continue to argue and I was being petty and a prick. Now this is getting silly)
|
Take away government funding, problem solved. Private organizations can set their membership rules however they like. Personal feelings aside, of course.
I'm pretty sure boy scout groups operate under an unofficial DADT policy, anyway.
|
Wow. They still discriminate on homosexuals even outside marriage laws? Sometimes the USA really amazes me and not always in a good way... This is an abomination.
|
i don't think them taking federal money should mean anything at all to whether they have to allow open homosexuals in their ranks or not.
the federal gov. shouldn't be able to put a leash on you just because they handed you some money. i wonder if these same people who support forcing the BSA to change policy based on the fact that they get federal dollars support the feds telling anyone who receives federal assistance (either through the states or not) that they have to take weekly drug tests.
of course there is probably some stupid reason why "that's DIFFERENT!!!!"
(i wouldn't support the change, but that's just me. i wouldn't really care either way, so if they allow open homosexuals to be in the group, it wouldn't end my world or whatever. i might not put my kids in, but that's a diff. story.)
|
On June 07 2012 17:44 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i don't think them taking federal money should mean anything at all to whether they have to allow open homosexuals in their ranks or not.
the federal gov. shouldn't be able to put a leash on you just because they handed you some money. i wonder if these same people who support forcing the BSA to change policy based on the fact that they get federal dollars support the feds telling anyone who receives federal assistance (either through the states or not) that they have to take weekly drug tests.
of course there is probably some stupid reason why "that's DIFFERENT!!!!"
(i wouldn't support the change, but that's just me. i wouldn't really care either way, so if they allow open homosexuals to be in the group, it wouldn't end my world or whatever. i might not put my kids in, but that's a diff. story.)
Government funding, taxpayer money, yadda yadda. You don't want to pay someone else's healthcare, I don't want to pay a bigoted organization.
|
So wait, how do they even know that someone is gay or not? I mean it's nobody's business that someone is gay or straight.
|
Wow, that's quite backwards of the boy scouts to ban gays. Would be nice of them to get with the times, or encourage a little tolerance.
|
I'm disgusted and disappointed that 27% of TL voted 'no'. Come on people. There is no link between homosexuality and paedophelia, and there is no reason why homosexual people should not be permitted to join or be scout leaders etc.
How ridiculous would a poll look if it were "Should BSA allow Black Scout leaders and members?". The answer is so obviously 'yes' that it almost seems redundant to ask such a question, but the results of the gay poll should be the same! 
Poll: Should BSA allow Black Scout leaders and members?No (16) 73% Yes (6) 27% 22 total votes Your vote: Should BSA allow Black Scout leaders and members? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
EDIT: added poll
EDIT2: lol votes. This makes me wonder how much of that 27% were just trolling (which is tiresome, but not so much so as ridiculous bigotry).
|
America will die because of gays. They all should die...
User was banned for this post.
|
in retrospect, that poll might have been a bad idea, i don't think anyones taking it seriously. lol.
|
On June 07 2012 14:33 SpunXtainz wrote:
If you want to be a boy scout leader, you shouldn't choose to be a homosexual. They want to have their pie and eat it too =/
This has to be a troll or you're just a horribly ignorant person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
