A new resolution is curerntly being reviewed for the Boy Scouts of America. The resolution aims to lift the ban on gays and will therefore allow gay scouts and gay leaders in to BSA. The proposal gives the power to each chartered group to decide whether to allow gays into their group.
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. A few members on the otherhand are open to the idea, stating that the group should keep in touch with the changing ideological pulse of the times. They estimate the issue to be decided by May 2013.
I feel this is a significant change towards freedom in America. Remember that Obama has already expressed support for Gay marriage, and this may well be the start of another snowball on gay rights and human rights on other fronts in society.
The Boy Scouts of America is considering a newly proposed resolution that calls for ending a 102-year-old policy they’ve grappled with in recent years: banning gay scouts and scout leaders, gay advocates told msnbc.com on Wednesday. Though the organization said it would review the proposal, a spokesman insisted there were no plans to change the policy.
The new policy would throw out the national ban and allow local chartering organizations to decide whether or not they would accept gay youth and leaders, said Zach Wahls, an Eagle Scout who has advocated for the change, citing unidentified people he spoke to who attended the group's national annual meeting last week where the proposal was made.
Boy Scouts of America spokesman Deron Smith said a resolution to amend the national policy to allow each of the Scouting’s chartered groups to set its own standards regarding gay members was turned in by a Scout leader from the northeast before April 30, the deadline for submitting resolutions to the meeting. He said it was read on May 31 at the meeting.
“While we’ll carefully consider this resolution, there are no plans to change this policy,” he said noting that resolutions and petitions on the matter were “not unique” and dated back to 2000, when the Supreme Court heard a challenge over their stance (the justices sided with the Boy Scouts in the lawsuit involving a former Assistant Scoutmaster who was gay, citing the protections of the First Amendment).
Wahls, the son of a lesbian couple, last Wednesday delivered a petition bearing 275,000 signatures calling for an end to the policy and the reinstatement of Jennifer Tyrrell to her post as den mother after she was ousted in April because she is gay.
Eagle Scout Zach Wahls, second right, delivers petitions to the Boys Scouts of America national annual meeting in Orlando, May 30, 2012, calling for an end to anti-gay discriminatory practices. Helping carry the cartons are Mark Anthony Dingbaum, left, and Christine Irvine of Change.org, the web-based social media platform on which the petition was launched.
Wahls said he was “absolutely ecstatic” when he heard about the proposal to change the policy, saying it would be akin to the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
“Clearly this shows that there’s a little bit more internal discussion than they might be outwardly describing, so in a very real sense this was in a lot of ways kind of the best possible, most realistic outcome of that delivery of that Change.org petition,” he said. “It’s kind of hard to believe really that ... we are finding ourselves in this place, but here we are.”
Eagle Scout son of lesbian moms: Boys Scouts must end gay discrimination Gay mom upset after dismissal by Boy Scouts
But Smith said their decision to accept the petition was “not related to the resolution,” earlier noting that it was out of respect for different points of view. He said resolutions were referred to and reviewed by a committee that would report back to the national executive board. The board then decides what actions are “appropriate,” he said.
The process would likely be done by May 2013, he said.
“There has been discussion about the BSA’s membership policy for decades. The BSA respectfully considers a wide range of views on this issue. Scouting has concluded its longstanding policy reflects the beliefs and perspectives of the BSA’s members,” he said. “Scouting believes same-sex attraction should be introduced and discussed outside of its youth program with parents, caregivers, or spiritual advisers, at the appropriate time and in the right setting. The vast majority of parents we serve value this right.”
He also noted that other resolutions had been introduced in the past “admonishing us to not change the policy. We have millions of youth and adult members each with a variety of beliefs about this issue and no single policy will accommodate everyone’s views.” Do you think the Boy Scouts of America should change its policy?
Still, Wahls said he has had conversations with a number of people inside the organization, as well as an outpouring of support from other Eagle Scouts, with whom he will form a group to work to end the policy. "We're all feeling very positive about where we’re at,” he said.
“At the end of the day, the BSA’s about teaching young people the values and lessons that they need to know to serve and lead our fellow Americans and those values are not conservative or liberal,” said the 20-year-old, of Iowa City, Iowa, who became known nationally after speaking before his home state's legislature in 2011 about having gay parents.
He noted that he thought ending the policy could go a long way to help boost membership numbers and to “restoring the BSA to its former mantle of moral leadership in this country.”
Tyrrell served as den leader in her Bridgeport, Ohio, community for less than a year before her ouster. The 32-year-old stay-at-home mother of four said she agreed to take up the role on the day she signed up her son, Cruz Burns, for the troop. She had concerns about the Boy Scouts' policy against homosexuals, but a Cubmaster said that they wouldn’t have a problem locally.
Losing her post and removing her son from the troop has been trying. She said she has contact with a lot of her scout parents: "I’m still a part of their lives but (it's) not the same,” she said Wednesday, her voice trembling.
But she was heartened that change may be on the horizon. “The fact that they’re moving along with the country and with the times and with the needs and wants of the American people, is a huge step and I’m super, super excited to be a tiny part of that,” she said.
Poll: Should BSA allow Gay Scout leaders and members?
Yes (818)
73%
No (301)
27%
1119 total votes
Your vote: Should BSA allow Gay Scout leaders and members?
I mean, it's shitty that they don't allow homosexuals, but they're a private institution. They make the rules on who and who cannot join.
I'm all for them allowing homosexuals in, as it's stupid that they don't, but no governing body has the right to regulate the rules of admission to what is essentially a public club.
(I only mention that because I know where this thread is going to go.)
Girls allowed in the Boy Scouts. Boys not allowed in the Girl Scouts.
Yup, Earth shattering I know.
Things change with time and pressure, both are on the civil rights movement's side in this case. It will eventually be repealed, the Boy Scouts won't survive without government funding.
There's obviously no logical reason for gay scout leaders to not be allowed... if they want to not allow it, it's their own foolish decision. There really isn't any argument against it except religious arguments, and they've really been done to death. :S
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...
The thing that bothers me most about the 'no gays' BSA policy is that they don't even provide a halfway decent reasoning. They say that the BSA is not the appropriate place to bring up the topic of homosexuality... as though that somehow justifies their stance...
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
Are you kidding? Because you know, if one gay guy happens to rape a kid, all homosexuals should be banned.
How the hell is that relevant? Should straight males not be allowed to run day cares and stuff in general?
By "them" I think he meant the individual that is responsible for the incident.
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?
On June 07 2012 11:35 WTFZerg wrote: I mean, it's shitty that they don't allow homosexuals, but they're a private institution. They make the rules on who and who cannot join.
I'm all for them allowing homosexuals in, as it's stupid that they don't, but no governing body has the right to regulate the rules of admission to what is essentially a public club.
(I only mention that because I know where this thread is going to go.)
I agree with this, but the problem is that schools sponsor boyscout troops. So in a way they are receiving Federal funding.
They're a private organization. So my opinion on the matter is pretty irrelevant. I respect people's rights to organize for whatever purpose, even if it is discriminatory or opposed to my own values. I think the BSA should allow it. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the BSA should do it. It's all up to the BSA members and their own beliefs whether or not to follow through. Not me. Not you. Not Obama. Just them.
On June 07 2012 11:38 Sofestafont wrote: Also don't allow atheists I believe.
Incorrect, i am openly agnostic, which matters in my area, and i was allowed in. My atheist friend made eagle scout. The only rule boy scouts has aginest atheists is that you must believe in a higher power of some kind to receive the rank of eagle scout, the highest rank in boy scouts. All you have to do is say you believe in a higher power. (i.e. you can say yes, and think of the laws of psychics or whatever) You just say yes and move on, they don't interrogate you about it (or should not at least). Edit: Also, a lot of the scouts i have talked too just apply dadt resumes on it, as if its not confirmed bsa can't do anything about it, and some of the troops i have talked to just ignore it, as long as council officials don't find out, its fine. 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.
All of my arguments are based on my troop and council which does not quit follow official bsa policy, so my argument is for the troop and council i was a part of, not scouting on a national level. If you are not from my troop and council, ignore my arguments, we have never really been as bigoted as we were supposed to be. I am not going to put this in all of my posts, but I am hoping that by putting it in the first one i can make this clear and still get to bed on time.
On June 07 2012 11:43 PassionFruit wrote: They're a private organization. So my opinion on the matter is pretty irrelevant. I respect people's rights to organize for whatever purpose, even if it is discriminatory or opposed to my own values. I think the BSA should allow it. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the BSA should do it. It's all up to the BSA members and their own beliefs whether or not to follow through. Not me. Not you. Not Obama. Just them.
This is my opinion too, but they do recieve federal funding so I have to be opposed to the ban.
On June 07 2012 11:38 Sofestafont wrote: Also don't allow atheists I believe.
Incorrect, i am openly agnostic, which matters in my area, and i was allowed in. My atheist friend made eagle scout. The only rule boy scouts has aginest atheists is that you must believe in a higher power of some kind to receive the rank of eagle scout, the highest rank in boy scouts. All you have to do is say you believe in a higher power. (i.e. you can say yes, and think of the laws of psychics or whatever) You just say yes and move on, they don't interrogate you about it (or should not at least).
Made me chuckle.
Also, you're incorrect, as you yourself pointed out (and was previously cited earlier). If you refuse to believe in a higher power, then obviously you can't receive certain ranks. And that's totally their decision to make, but obviously it's discriminatory against certain atheists and agnostics.
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...
Oh you. Just because someone is gay doesn't make them feminine at all. The truth is, you wouldn't be able to tell most gay men from straight men from the way they act because most gay men aren't flamboyant at all.
Hmm. Does anyone have more concrete stats about federal funding? School's holding fundraisers hardly counts... If they receive any federal funding I'm all for repealing this asinine policy. If they don't... well, I will just continue to not buy boy-scout cookies :D
I wonder why they can't just go with a form of DADT policy. Someone's sexual orientation shouldn't be a problem unless they're really flagrant about it.
EDIT: Any identity can be a Girl Scout- even boys.
Not everything you read on the internet is true. They do allow girls. That much I know for a fact, I've met a girl who was in a division of Boy Scouts before.
I'm an Eagle Scout. I generally like tradition, and given that the Boy Scouts is (was) a religious group, I hope they uphold it. The same thing with the ban on atheists. No reason to pressure a group to change their ways (based on the fundamentals of it's founding) for the "time" or else they would also have to allow atheists. The BSA as a whole is more than just a group of people who go on camping trips. This is what separates us from the girls scouts, as well. if someone wants these things, they can start their own organization.
EDIT: but I will say, the local leaders are the PRIMARY authority for joining. I personally heard my scoutmasters support the idea of gays in the BSA; there is no strict rule keeping done.
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
Are you fuckin' kidding me? Homosexuality is nothing at all like malicious pedophilia, so why the hell are you making a connection between the two? And phrasing it in a way that implies rape will eventually occur if a homosexual is inducted as a Boy Scout official?! I'm sorry, but your thought process is simply ludicrous.
As for the controversy itself, I personally think it is immoral to bar homosexuals (or athiests, or Muslims, or whatever minority) access to any sort of institution under such flimsy grounds as "it's tradition". However, as is mentioned earlier in the thread, the BSA is a private organization, so they have the power to do so. Even so, I don't like it, and I dearly wish that this practice of theirs is abolished so that anyone who wishes to join (within reason, of course) is permitted to.
On June 07 2012 11:53 ObliviousNA wrote: Hmm. Does anyone have more concrete stats about federal funding? School's holding fundraisers hardly counts... If they receive any federal funding I'm all for repealing this asinine policy. If they don't... well, I will just continue to not buy boy-scout cookies :D
Fortunately, you have a delicious alternative in Girl Scout cookies. Thin Mints... mmmm...
On June 07 2012 11:38 Sofestafont wrote: Also don't allow atheists I believe.
What nonsense lol I was a boyscout for half a year and I've never claimed or pretended to be any religion. Not once was my religion considered important or was I instructed to lie about it. I'm aware the official policy is against it. I'm also aware the official law is to arrest anyone that smokes marijuana but it's not like that is universally enforced either
The thing is, organizations like the Boy Scouts are lead locally while adhering to national standards. What that ends up meaning is there is a lot of room for Don't ask Don't tell kind of stuff. Scout leaders, as long as they don't parade around their dissent, can get away with allowing homosexuals, atheists, communists and what have you to join.
However, it is a repugnant policy that walked hand in hand with the racist and bigoted mentalities of the last century. It's about time we put to rest such blind hatred (or worse, indifference)
On June 07 2012 11:53 ObliviousNA wrote: Hmm. Does anyone have more concrete stats about federal funding? School's holding fundraisers hardly counts... If they receive any federal funding I'm all for repealing this asinine policy. If they don't... well, I will just continue to not buy boy-scout cookies :D
On June 07 2012 11:57 Introvert wrote: I'm an Eagle Scout. I generally like tradition, and given that the Boy Scouts is (was) a religious group, I hope they uphold it. The same thing with the ban on atheists. No reason to pressure a group to change their ways (based on the fundamentals of it's founding) for the "time" or else they would also have to allow atheists. The BSA as a whole is more than just a group of people who go on camping trips. This is what separates us from the girls scouts, as well. if someone wants these things, they can start their own organization.
Then stop the Federal funding!
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...
Masculine past time? I don't know where you are, but where I am (I'm not saying I necessarily approve, although I do unconsciously view it sometimes as such) located it's usually laughed at by peers as being something childish. It's usually heavily ridiculed by females as well as simply dorky.
Kinda like video games are. Not everyone thinks that way, but in general, the stereotype of the nerd who plays video games exist, regardless of whether it's true. Same goes to say for boy scouts. I sort of have that perception (it's an extremely childish/dorky activity), although I try to realize it's a stereotype, and since I don't know much about it, it in fact could be potentially badass.
On June 07 2012 11:38 Sofestafont wrote: Also don't allow atheists I believe.
Incorrect, i am openly agnostic, which matters in my area, and i was allowed in. My atheist friend made eagle scout. The only rule boy scouts has aginest atheists is that you must believe in a higher power of some kind to receive the rank of eagle scout, the highest rank in boy scouts. All you have to do is say you believe in a higher power. (i.e. you can say yes, and think of the laws of psychics or whatever) You just say yes and move on, they don't interrogate you about it (or should not at least).
Made me chuckle.
Also, you're incorrect, as you yourself pointed out (and was previously cited earlier). If you refuse to believe in a higher power, then obviously you can't receive certain ranks. And that's totally their decision to make, but obviously it's discriminatory against certain atheists and agnostics.
I know several people who have gotten by on the technicality that i mentioned , that as long as we believe in some higher power, which my local council explains as beyond mans control, you can get any rank you earn. Officially you are correct, but most scouts and leaders prove of those technicalities, and also i was commenting on the fact that he said that they did not allow atheists, which is completely incorrect.
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...
Oh you. Just because someone is gay doesn't make them feminine at all. The truth is, you wouldn't be able to tell most gay men from straight men from the way they act because most gay men aren't flamboyant at all.
I think it is a misjudgement that most gay men can't me told apart from straight ones. Almost all of the gay people I know are quite feminine.
On June 07 2012 11:57 Introvert wrote: I'm an Eagle Scout. I generally like tradition, and given that the Boy Scouts is (was) a religious group, I hope they uphold it. The same thing with the ban on atheists. No reason to pressure a group to change their ways (based on the fundamentals of it's founding) for the "time" or else they would also have to allow atheists. The BSA as a whole is more than just a group of people who go on camping trips. This is what separates us from the girls scouts, as well. if someone wants these things, they can start their own organization.
Then stop the Federal funding!
eh, I could see the case for that. The thing is, they don't TEACH anti gay things, for instance. Such things are not often (if ever) mentioned. I think they do WAY more good than "harm". I think it's over doing it to take their funding.
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...
Have you seen Boy Scouts lately? In my troop there were only like 2 people I would consider masculine manly men, the rest of us were just nerds who happened to be into camping and most other scouts I've come across have been the same.
Gays have been discriminated against by scouts for a while now. This is a step in the right direction. I'm proud to say that I was a scout now-- One that is open and accepting of everyone.
On June 07 2012 11:57 Introvert wrote: I'm an Eagle Scout. I generally like tradition, and given that the Boy Scouts is (was) a religious group, I hope they uphold it. The same thing with the ban on atheists. No reason to pressure a group to change their ways (based on the fundamentals of it's founding) for the "time" or else they would also have to allow atheists. The BSA as a whole is more than just a group of people who go on camping trips. This is what separates us from the girls scouts, as well. if someone wants these things, they can start their own organization.
Then stop the Federal funding!
eh, I could see the case for that. The thing is, they don't TEACH anti gay things, for instance. Such things are not often (if ever) mentioned. I think they do WAY more good than "harm". I think it's over doing it to take their funding.
Doesn't matter - they still discriminate heavily. They do a lot of good... for nonhomosexuals and nonatheists .
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...
Oh you. Just because someone is gay doesn't make them feminine at all. The truth is, you wouldn't be able to tell most gay men from straight men from the way they act because most gay men aren't flamboyant at all.
I think it is a misjudgement that most gay men can't me told apart from straight ones. Almost all of the gay people I know are quite feminine.
How many gays have you meet just out of curiosity, i know some feminine gays, and some who go for the super buff gym rat look, and some who are in between, like most people. Its just that the feminine ones are the easiest to pick out of a crowd that leads to this line of thinking.
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...
Have you seen Boy Scouts lately? In my troop there were only like 2 people I would consider masculine manly men, the rest of us were just nerds who happened to be into camping.
Not all gay people are feminine. That's a sweeping generalization to say that all gays are feminine.
On June 07 2012 11:38 Sofestafont wrote: Also don't allow atheists I believe.
Incorrect, i am openly agnostic, which matters in my area, and i was allowed in. My atheist friend made eagle scout. The only rule boy scouts has aginest atheists is that you must believe in a higher power of some kind to receive the rank of eagle scout, the highest rank in boy scouts. All you have to do is say you believe in a higher power. (i.e. you can say yes, and think of the laws of psychics or whatever) You just say yes and move on, they don't interrogate you about it (or should not at least).
Made me chuckle.
Also, you're incorrect, as you yourself pointed out (and was previously cited earlier). If you refuse to believe in a higher power, then obviously you can't receive certain ranks. And that's totally their decision to make, but obviously it's discriminatory against certain atheists and agnostics.
I know several people who have gotten by on the technicality that i mentioned , that as long as we believe in some higher power, which my local council explains as beyond mans control, you can get any rank you earn. Officially you are correct, but most scouts and leaders prove of those technicalities, and also i was commenting on the fact that he said that they did not allow atheists, which is completely incorrect.
So if an atheist believes in psychics he can be a Boy Scout?
Or do you mean if he accepts physics, which has nothing to do with a higher spiritual power? Regardless, I get the technicality and I think that it's really silly... why even have the discriminatory law if you're going to loophole it with literally everything? I mean, I'm thankful they do... but they might as well get rid of it then. (I pray to Joe Pesci )
On June 07 2012 11:57 Introvert wrote: I'm an Eagle Scout. I generally like tradition, and given that the Boy Scouts is (was) a religious group, I hope they uphold it. The same thing with the ban on atheists. No reason to pressure a group to change their ways (based on the fundamentals of it's founding) for the "time" or else they would also have to allow atheists. The BSA as a whole is more than just a group of people who go on camping trips. This is what separates us from the girls scouts, as well. if someone wants these things, they can start their own organization.
EDIT: but I will say, the local leaders are the PRIMARY authority for joining. I personally heard my scoutmasters support the idea of gays in the BSA; there is no strict rule keeping done.
Then stop taking money from gay citizens in the form of federal funding.
That's the most important point, the next most important is it's not okay to promote the ideas of discrimination as okay because it's private or based on tradition. There are lots of awful, awful things we don't do anymore that we did when the boyscouts were founded, discriminating against gays is one of them.
The thing is Introvert, fostering a policy of exclusion based on differences in sexual or religious choices does exactly that. It breeds racism, bigotry and unease at fellow human beings. It's the same proud tradition that used to hang negros and burn young women for witchcraft.
On June 07 2012 11:38 Sofestafont wrote: Also don't allow atheists I believe.
Incorrect, i am openly agnostic, which matters in my area, and i was allowed in. My atheist friend made eagle scout. The only rule boy scouts has aginest atheists is that you must believe in a higher power of some kind to receive the rank of eagle scout, the highest rank in boy scouts. All you have to do is say you believe in a higher power. (i.e. you can say yes, and think of the laws of psychics or whatever) You just say yes and move on, they don't interrogate you about it (or should not at least).
Made me chuckle.
Also, you're incorrect, as you yourself pointed out (and was previously cited earlier). If you refuse to believe in a higher power, then obviously you can't receive certain ranks. And that's totally their decision to make, but obviously it's discriminatory against certain atheists and agnostics.
I know several people who have gotten by on the technicality that i mentioned , that as long as we believe in some higher power, which my local council explains as beyond mans control, you can get any rank you earn. Officially you are correct, but most scouts and leaders prove of those technicalities, and also i was commenting on the fact that he said that they did not allow atheists, which is completely incorrect.
Well, we're talking about official policies, so the fact that some troops or whatever can get by with ignoring the official policies is pretty irrelevant.
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...
Oh you. Just because someone is gay doesn't make them feminine at all. The truth is, you wouldn't be able to tell most gay men from straight men from the way they act because most gay men aren't flamboyant at all.
I think it is a misjudgement that most gay men can't me told apart from straight ones. Almost all of the gay people I know are quite feminine.
I can link you to LOTS of pictures of masculine gay men if you would like me to. But something tells me you wouldn't like that. In addition. Femininity doesn't equal a bad leader, masculine men do not have the monopoly on leadership skills I'm afraid.
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...
Have you seen Boy Scouts lately? In my troop there were only like 2 people I would consider masculine manly men, the rest of us were just nerds who happened to be into camping.
That was my entire troop, and we won almost all of the awards given at every single camporee we attended.
for those that don't know, a camporee is when most or all of the scout troops in a district descend on a unsuspecting area and do a lot of somewhat scouting related activities, like try to pick up local girls and play with fire and sharp objects.
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).
On June 07 2012 11:57 Introvert wrote: I'm an Eagle Scout. I generally like tradition, and given that the Boy Scouts is (was) a religious group, I hope they uphold it. The same thing with the ban on atheists. No reason to pressure a group to change their ways (based on the fundamentals of it's founding) for the "time" or else they would also have to allow atheists. The BSA as a whole is more than just a group of people who go on camping trips. This is what separates us from the girls scouts, as well. if someone wants these things, they can start their own organization.
To address your points:
It's only some religions that have issues with gay people. Most (Roman) Catholics I know aren't bothered by it, and are even in favor of gay marriage. Upholding the ban "for religious reasons" is just as strong of an argument as taking down the ban "for religious reasons". Religion argues both ways, so that's not really a good point.
As for tradition- well, sure. That is an argument. Not a great one, but an argument.
I honestly don't see in what way the BSA is more than a group that does camping, and teaching of minor skills. (The badges- canoing, firestarting, etc etc etc.) How can they claim to be raising people to make ethical and moral choices when they themselves are extremely discriminatory in who they allow? How can they hold the moral high ground when they simply don't care what happens when scouts are bullying one another?
Eagle scouts I haven't heard nearly as many bad things about, and anyone who does manage to achieve that, I have a wary respect for. The rest? Not so much.
The girl scouts sell me delicious cookies. The boyscouts don't do anything for the community. (Again: Eagle scout's community projects are an exception. ONLY the Eagle scouts are doing it- not the boy scouts)
On June 07 2012 11:38 Sofestafont wrote: Also don't allow atheists I believe.
Incorrect, i am openly agnostic, which matters in my area, and i was allowed in. My atheist friend made eagle scout. The only rule boy scouts has aginest atheists is that you must believe in a higher power of some kind to receive the rank of eagle scout, the highest rank in boy scouts. All you have to do is say you believe in a higher power. (i.e. you can say yes, and think of the laws of psychics or whatever) You just say yes and move on, they don't interrogate you about it (or should not at least).
Made me chuckle.
Also, you're incorrect, as you yourself pointed out (and was previously cited earlier). If you refuse to believe in a higher power, then obviously you can't receive certain ranks. And that's totally their decision to make, but obviously it's discriminatory against certain atheists and agnostics.
I know several people who have gotten by on the technicality that i mentioned , that as long as we believe in some higher power, which my local council explains as beyond mans control, you can get any rank you earn. Officially you are correct, but most scouts and leaders prove of those technicalities, and also i was commenting on the fact that he said that they did not allow atheists, which is completely incorrect.
So if an atheist believes in psychics he can be a Boy Scout?
Or do you mean if he accepts physics, which has nothing to do with a higher spiritual power? Regardless, I get the technicality and I think that it's really silly... why even have the discriminatory law if you're going to loophole it with literally everything? I mean, I'm thankful they do... but they might as well get rid of it then. (I pray to Joe Pesci )
they say nothing of a higher spiritual power, only a higher power, and that only applies to becoming an eagle scout, not being a boyscout. You can be a atheist boyscout, and there are a lot of them, but unless you play the loop hole, you can't be a eagle scout, which i agree is bullcrap. The reason we have said loop hole and have not gotten rid of said stupid rule is there are a fair number of extreme conservatives who have been scouters for their entire lives, and thus drag us back into the 20th and even 19th century, not because the majority of boy scouts agree with them.
On June 07 2012 11:57 Introvert wrote: I'm an Eagle Scout. I generally like tradition, and given that the Boy Scouts is (was) a religious group, I hope they uphold it. The same thing with the ban on atheists. No reason to pressure a group to change their ways (based on the fundamentals of it's founding) for the "time" or else they would also have to allow atheists. The BSA as a whole is more than just a group of people who go on camping trips. This is what separates us from the girls scouts, as well. if someone wants these things, they can start their own organization.
Then stop the Federal funding!
eh, I could see the case for that. The thing is, they don't TEACH anti gay things, for instance. Such things are not often (if ever) mentioned. I think they do WAY more good than "harm". I think it's over doing it to take their funding.
Doesn't matter - they still discriminate heavily. They do a lot of good... for nonhomosexuals and nonatheists .
I would argue for everyone. They are NOT openly discriminating. It's just part of the rules. They are using the money for the good of everyone, not just "nonhomosexuals" and "nonatheists".
On June 07 2012 11:57 Introvert wrote: I'm an Eagle Scout. I generally like tradition, and given that the Boy Scouts is (was) a religious group, I hope they uphold it. The same thing with the ban on atheists. No reason to pressure a group to change their ways (based on the fundamentals of it's founding) for the "time" or else they would also have to allow atheists. The BSA as a whole is more than just a group of people who go on camping trips. This is what separates us from the girls scouts, as well. if someone wants these things, they can start their own organization.
EDIT: but I will say, the local leaders are the PRIMARY authority for joining. I personally heard my scoutmasters support the idea of gays in the BSA; there is no strict rule keeping done.
Then stop taking money from gay citizens in the form of federal funding.
That's the most important point, the next most important is it's not okay to promote the ideas of discrimination as okay because it's private or based on tradition. There are lots of awful, awful things we don't do anymore that we did when the boyscouts were founded, discriminating against gays is one of them.
They aren't "promoting" anything. They have an an official policy, one which MANY of my leaders disagreed with personally. This is not some atrocity. The bad thing would be pressuring them into a position that comprises the organizations ideals. I think it's also worth pointing it is almost entirely a volunteer based operation. They don't have employees running around monitoring homosexual join attempts.
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.
On June 07 2012 11:57 Introvert wrote: I'm an Eagle Scout. I generally like tradition, and given that the Boy Scouts is (was) a religious group, I hope they uphold it. The same thing with the ban on atheists. No reason to pressure a group to change their ways (based on the fundamentals of it's founding) for the "time" or else they would also have to allow atheists. The BSA as a whole is more than just a group of people who go on camping trips. This is what separates us from the girls scouts, as well. if someone wants these things, they can start their own organization.
To address your points:
The girl scouts sell me delicious cookies. The boyscouts don't do anything for the community. (Again: Eagle scout's community projects are an exception. ONLY the Eagle scouts are doing it- not the boy scouts)
Eagle projects are done planned by the eagle scout, and the entire troop pitches in for the labor and fundraising ( at least in my old troop) And every single troop that i have ever come across does at least one community service day per year, and that is mandatory for all the scouts to attend. I never made eagle scout, but i have over 300 logged hours of community service though boy scouts alone, and though i have more than most, every single rank advancement in boy scouting has required community service hours.
This is the most obvious question in history. Tradition is great and all, unless it's random, exclusionary, and unnecessary. When the only argument left for tradition is; "because it's tradition", then it's a terrible tradition.
On June 07 2012 11:57 Introvert wrote: I'm an Eagle Scout. I generally like tradition, and given that the Boy Scouts is (was) a religious group, I hope they uphold it. The same thing with the ban on atheists. No reason to pressure a group to change their ways (based on the fundamentals of it's founding) for the "time" or else they would also have to allow atheists. The BSA as a whole is more than just a group of people who go on camping trips. This is what separates us from the girls scouts, as well. if someone wants these things, they can start their own organization.
To address your points:
It's only some religions that have issues with gay people. Most (Roman) Catholics I know aren't bothered by it, and are even in favor of gay marriage. Upholding the ban "for religious reasons" is just as strong of an argument as taking down the ban "for religious reasons". Religion argues both ways, so that's not really a good point.
As for tradition- well, sure. That is an argument. Not a great one, but an argument.
I honestly don't see in what way the BSA is more than a group that does camping, and teaching of minor skills. (The badges- canoing, firestarting, etc etc etc.) How can they claim to be raising people to make ethical and moral choices when they themselves are extremely discriminatory in who they allow? How can they hold the moral high ground when they simply don't care what happens when scouts are bullying one another?
Eagle scouts I haven't heard nearly as many bad things about, and anyone who does manage to achieve that, I have a wary respect for. The rest? Not so much.
The girl scouts sell me delicious cookies. The boyscouts don't do anything for the community. (Again: Eagle scout's community projects are an exception. ONLY the Eagle scouts are doing it- not the boy scouts)
In anything of this nature, you are going to have dropouts. That doesn't put a bad mark on the BSA, just those who quit.
you are right, many religious people don't, but the religious ideals at it's founding were this way. I suppose if the vast majority of leaders consider it the right step, then... well I don't know. it wouldn't really be the Scouts anymore. I mean the pledge mentions God, but I suppose they could allow atheists in. It is just one of those things. it's hard to argue this without getting into the bigger topic of gay rights in general (forcing Churches to hold gay weddings, photographers can't refuse to do a gay wedding, etc). They can chose, and I don't see why they NEED to do this if it is in opposition to what it was founded on. just because that was over a 100 years ago makes no difference. My arguments sound bad because I'm trying to keep this narrow.
On June 07 2012 11:57 Introvert wrote: I'm an Eagle Scout. I generally like tradition, and given that the Boy Scouts is (was) a religious group, I hope they uphold it. The same thing with the ban on atheists. No reason to pressure a group to change their ways (based on the fundamentals of it's founding) for the "time" or else they would also have to allow atheists. The BSA as a whole is more than just a group of people who go on camping trips. This is what separates us from the girls scouts, as well. if someone wants these things, they can start their own organization.
To address your points:
It's only some religions that have issues with gay people. Most (Roman) Catholics I know aren't bothered by it, and are even in favor of gay marriage. Upholding the ban "for religious reasons" is just as strong of an argument as taking down the ban "for religious reasons". Religion argues both ways, so that's not really a good point.
As for tradition- well, sure. That is an argument. Not a great one, but an argument.
I honestly don't see in what way the BSA is more than a group that does camping, and teaching of minor skills. (The badges- canoing, firestarting, etc etc etc.) How can they claim to be raising people to make ethical and moral choices when they themselves are extremely discriminatory in who they allow? How can they hold the moral high ground when they simply don't care what happens when scouts are bullying one another?
Eagle scouts I haven't heard nearly as many bad things about, and anyone who does manage to achieve that, I have a wary respect for. The rest? Not so much.
The girl scouts sell me delicious cookies. The boyscouts don't do anything for the community. (Again: Eagle scout's community projects are an exception. ONLY the Eagle scouts are doing it- not the boy scouts)
In anything of this nature, you are going to have dropouts. That doesn't put a bad mark on the BSA, just those who quit.
you are right, many religious people don't, but the religious ideals at it's founding were this way. I suppose if the vast majority of leaders considers it the right step, then... well I don't know. it wouldn't really be the Scouts anymore. I mean the pledge mentions God, but I suppose they could allow atheists in. It is just one of those things. it's hard to argue this without getting into the bigger topic of gay rights in general (forcing Churches to hold gay weddings, photographers can't refuse to do a gay wedding, etc). They can chose, and I don't see why they NEED to do this if it is in opposition to what it was founded on. just because that was over a 100 years ago makes no difference. My arguments sound bad because I'm trying to keep this narrow.
I'm pretty sure we do, or atleast i have never heard of a scout being kicked from the organization for being a atheist.
Also i should mention that i am from the north east, and we have gotten in trouble in the past for playing fast and loose with the rules, so my experience may not be that of others involved in scouting.
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...
dude wtf.
gay=/=feminine. i don't know where you got that fucking gem of an idea from.
On June 07 2012 11:57 Introvert wrote: I'm an Eagle Scout. I generally like tradition, and given that the Boy Scouts is (was) a religious group, I hope they uphold it. The same thing with the ban on atheists. No reason to pressure a group to change their ways (based on the fundamentals of it's founding) for the "time" or else they would also have to allow atheists. The BSA as a whole is more than just a group of people who go on camping trips. This is what separates us from the girls scouts, as well. if someone wants these things, they can start their own organization.
To address your points:
It's only some religions that have issues with gay people. Most (Roman) Catholics I know aren't bothered by it, and are even in favor of gay marriage. Upholding the ban "for religious reasons" is just as strong of an argument as taking down the ban "for religious reasons". Religion argues both ways, so that's not really a good point.
As for tradition- well, sure. That is an argument. Not a great one, but an argument.
I honestly don't see in what way the BSA is more than a group that does camping, and teaching of minor skills. (The badges- canoing, firestarting, etc etc etc.) How can they claim to be raising people to make ethical and moral choices when they themselves are extremely discriminatory in who they allow? How can they hold the moral high ground when they simply don't care what happens when scouts are bullying one another?
Eagle scouts I haven't heard nearly as many bad things about, and anyone who does manage to achieve that, I have a wary respect for. The rest? Not so much.
The girl scouts sell me delicious cookies. The boyscouts don't do anything for the community. (Again: Eagle scout's community projects are an exception. ONLY the Eagle scouts are doing it- not the boy scouts)
In anything of this nature, you are going to have dropouts. That doesn't put a bad mark on the BSA, just those who quit.
you are right, many religious people don't, but the religious ideals at it's founding were this way. I suppose if the vast majority of leaders considers it the right step, then... well I don't know. it wouldn't really be the Scouts anymore. I mean the pledge mentions God, but I suppose they could allow atheists in. It is just one of those things. it's hard to argue this without getting into the bigger topic of gay rights in general (forcing Churches to hold gay weddings, photographers can't refuse to do a gay wedding, etc). They can chose, and I don't see why they NEED to do this if it is in opposition to what it was founded on. just because that was over a 100 years ago makes no difference. My arguments sound bad because I'm trying to keep this narrow.
I'm pretty sure we do, or atleast i have never heard of a scout being kicked from the organization for being a atheist.
I think if a higher-up found out, he would be obliged to remove him. However, I think most leaders nowadays wouldn't do so.
I think worse of the scouts essentially lying or saying things "they don't really mean" then the organization. It is a private, volunteer organization that does A LOT for local communities.
I'm not going to watch the video, I can't stand Penn. He's an actor that many apparently go to for knowledge, when it is often clear he has none.
On June 07 2012 11:57 Introvert wrote: I'm an Eagle Scout. I generally like tradition, and given that the Boy Scouts is (was) a religious group, I hope they uphold it. The same thing with the ban on atheists. No reason to pressure a group to change their ways (based on the fundamentals of it's founding) for the "time" or else they would also have to allow atheists. The BSA as a whole is more than just a group of people who go on camping trips. This is what separates us from the girls scouts, as well. if someone wants these things, they can start their own organization.
To address your points:
It's only some religions that have issues with gay people. Most (Roman) Catholics I know aren't bothered by it, and are even in favor of gay marriage. Upholding the ban "for religious reasons" is just as strong of an argument as taking down the ban "for religious reasons". Religion argues both ways, so that's not really a good point.
As for tradition- well, sure. That is an argument. Not a great one, but an argument.
I honestly don't see in what way the BSA is more than a group that does camping, and teaching of minor skills. (The badges- canoing, firestarting, etc etc etc.) How can they claim to be raising people to make ethical and moral choices when they themselves are extremely discriminatory in who they allow? How can they hold the moral high ground when they simply don't care what happens when scouts are bullying one another?
Eagle scouts I haven't heard nearly as many bad things about, and anyone who does manage to achieve that, I have a wary respect for. The rest? Not so much.
The girl scouts sell me delicious cookies. The boyscouts don't do anything for the community. (Again: Eagle scout's community projects are an exception. ONLY the Eagle scouts are doing it- not the boy scouts)
In anything of this nature, you are going to have dropouts. That doesn't put a bad mark on the BSA, just those who quit.
you are right, many religious people don't, but the religious ideals at it's founding were this way. I suppose if the vast majority of leaders considers it the right step, then... well I don't know. it wouldn't really be the Scouts anymore. I mean the pledge mentions God, but I suppose they could allow atheists in. It is just one of those things. it's hard to argue this without getting into the bigger topic of gay rights in general (forcing Churches to hold gay weddings, photographers can't refuse to do a gay wedding, etc). They can chose, and I don't see why they NEED to do this if it is in opposition to what it was founded on. just because that was over a 100 years ago makes no difference. My arguments sound bad because I'm trying to keep this narrow.
I'm pretty sure we do, or atleast i have never heard of a scout being kicked from the organization for being a atheist.
You also said that the boy scouts help with the eagle scout project, so unless some small boys were drawing my blood a few years ago, you are missing some information.
I was "kicked" out for being an athiest in 1999. It be easier to say removed but the idea still stands. My scout leader said that because I didn't believe in God (which he had overheard me telling my friends) that I should leave.
EDIT: Any identity can be a Girl Scout- even boys.
DarkPlasmaBall dropping the knowledge bombs. Seems BSA hasn't updated its views for around a hundred years. I would call them scumbags but beauracracy is slow and I doubt the majority of the scout leaders hate atheists or anything. As for the part about boys being able to be a girl scout.... well.... I don't get the reasoning behind that. Maybe if the issue of transgenders ever came up, but still. The reasoning is odd. Not that they need to worry though lol. The first guy to enter the girl scouts who didn't have any surgery done is going to get his ass kicked by his peers.
On June 07 2012 11:57 Introvert wrote: I'm an Eagle Scout. I generally like tradition, and given that the Boy Scouts is (was) a religious group, I hope they uphold it. The same thing with the ban on atheists. No reason to pressure a group to change their ways (based on the fundamentals of it's founding) for the "time" or else they would also have to allow atheists. The BSA as a whole is more than just a group of people who go on camping trips. This is what separates us from the girls scouts, as well. if someone wants these things, they can start their own organization.
To address your points:
It's only some religions that have issues with gay people. Most (Roman) Catholics I know aren't bothered by it, and are even in favor of gay marriage. Upholding the ban "for religious reasons" is just as strong of an argument as taking down the ban "for religious reasons". Religion argues both ways, so that's not really a good point.
As for tradition- well, sure. That is an argument. Not a great one, but an argument.
I honestly don't see in what way the BSA is more than a group that does camping, and teaching of minor skills. (The badges- canoing, firestarting, etc etc etc.) How can they claim to be raising people to make ethical and moral choices when they themselves are extremely discriminatory in who they allow? How can they hold the moral high ground when they simply don't care what happens when scouts are bullying one another?
Eagle scouts I haven't heard nearly as many bad things about, and anyone who does manage to achieve that, I have a wary respect for. The rest? Not so much.
The girl scouts sell me delicious cookies. The boyscouts don't do anything for the community. (Again: Eagle scout's community projects are an exception. ONLY the Eagle scouts are doing it- not the boy scouts)
In anything of this nature, you are going to have dropouts. That doesn't put a bad mark on the BSA, just those who quit.
you are right, many religious people don't, but the religious ideals at it's founding were this way. I suppose if the vast majority of leaders considers it the right step, then... well I don't know. it wouldn't really be the Scouts anymore. I mean the pledge mentions God, but I suppose they could allow atheists in. It is just one of those things. it's hard to argue this without getting into the bigger topic of gay rights in general (forcing Churches to hold gay weddings, photographers can't refuse to do a gay wedding, etc). They can chose, and I don't see why they NEED to do this if it is in opposition to what it was founded on. just because that was over a 100 years ago makes no difference. My arguments sound bad because I'm trying to keep this narrow.
I'm pretty sure we do, or atleast i have never heard of a scout being kicked from the organization for being a atheist.
I think if a higher-up found out, he would be obliged to remove him. However, I think most leaders nowadays wouldn't do so. I think worse of the scouts essentially lying or saying things "they don't really mean", then the organization. It is a private, volunteer organization that does A LOT for local communities.
I'm not going to watch the video, I can't stand Penn. He's an actor that many apparently go to for knowledge, when it is often clear he has none.
I just went over my old paper work and realized, that my district has been using unofficial paper work for years, so my boy scouting has been a bit different from the standard experience. And also, my troop and district do not require us to sign such paper work, don't tell texas. Edit: we used the learning for live paper work, as does my entire district.
Pretty sure boy scouts was founded as a christen organisation (though its not limited to) that's why but not a good excuse. All should be excepted except girls.
EDIT: Any identity can be a Girl Scout- even boys.
Theoretically they could enforce it, but few troops I've met do (granted, up north were more liberal). I have gay friends, agnostic friends and atheistic friends who are boy scouts. I haven't heard of a gay scout leader though. It should be done with soon if people spread the word around.
"I feel this is a significant change towards freedom in America." In much the same way that low carb pie is a significant shift towards the abolition of obesity. It's the boy scouts. Not the senate. In the long run, if the boy scouts banned or allowed anything it would be literally completely irrelevant.
On June 07 2012 12:39 hzflank wrote: If a company refused to employ gay people, would it be okay because the company is a private organisation?
I am absolutely amazed that 25% of people voted No in the OP poll.
I voted yes, but the reasoning behind at least some of those votes is that they believe that scouting is a private organization, and not regulated by the government like businesses, and there for make their own decisions, no matter how they personally fell about it. (and there are a few bigots who have other reasons)
On June 07 2012 12:39 hzflank wrote: If a company refused to employ gay people, would it be okay because the company is a private organisation?
I am absolutely amazed that 25% of people voted No in the OP poll.
I voted yes, but the reasoning behind at least some of those votes is that they believe that scouting is a private organization, and not regulated by the government like businesses, and there for make their own decisions, no matter how they personally fell about it. (and there are a few bigots who have other reasons)
I voted yes, because they should allow homosexuals. Do they have to? No, but they should.
as a former boy scout I think it is important to keep the members to strait religious males only. and yes if you did not know atheist are not allowed in scouts either. The biggest problem is there can't be sexual attraction between people you are camping with. even if it never lead to sex during scout trips it would make sleeping in an tent, changing clothes, and everything in general more awkward. just like the Boy Scouts does not allow girls it should not allow homosexual males to join
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.
On June 07 2012 11:57 Introvert wrote: I'm an Eagle Scout. I generally like tradition, and given that the Boy Scouts is (was) a religious group, I hope they uphold it. The same thing with the ban on atheists. No reason to pressure a group to change their ways (based on the fundamentals of it's founding) for the "time" or else they would also have to allow atheists. The BSA as a whole is more than just a group of people who go on camping trips. This is what separates us from the girls scouts, as well. if someone wants these things, they can start their own organization.
To address your points:
It's only some religions that have issues with gay people. Most (Roman) Catholics I know aren't bothered by it, and are even in favor of gay marriage. Upholding the ban "for religious reasons" is just as strong of an argument as taking down the ban "for religious reasons". Religion argues both ways, so that's not really a good point.
As for tradition- well, sure. That is an argument. Not a great one, but an argument.
I honestly don't see in what way the BSA is more than a group that does camping, and teaching of minor skills. (The badges- canoing, firestarting, etc etc etc.) How can they claim to be raising people to make ethical and moral choices when they themselves are extremely discriminatory in who they allow? How can they hold the moral high ground when they simply don't care what happens when scouts are bullying one another?
Eagle scouts I haven't heard nearly as many bad things about, and anyone who does manage to achieve that, I have a wary respect for. The rest? Not so much.
The girl scouts sell me delicious cookies. The boyscouts don't do anything for the community. (Again: Eagle scout's community projects are an exception. ONLY the Eagle scouts are doing it- not the boy scouts)
In anything of this nature, you are going to have dropouts. That doesn't put a bad mark on the BSA, just those who quit.
you are right, many religious people don't, but the religious ideals at it's founding were this way. I suppose if the vast majority of leaders considers it the right step, then... well I don't know. it wouldn't really be the Scouts anymore. I mean the pledge mentions God, but I suppose they could allow atheists in. It is just one of those things. it's hard to argue this without getting into the bigger topic of gay rights in general (forcing Churches to hold gay weddings, photographers can't refuse to do a gay wedding, etc). They can chose, and I don't see why they NEED to do this if it is in opposition to what it was founded on. just because that was over a 100 years ago makes no difference. My arguments sound bad because I'm trying to keep this narrow.
I'm pretty sure we do, or atleast i have never heard of a scout being kicked from the organization for being a atheist.
You also said that the boy scouts help with the eagle scout project, so unless some small boys were drawing my blood a few years ago, you are missing some information.
I was "kicked" out for being an athiest in 1999. It be easier to say removed but the idea still stands. My scout leader said that because I didn't believe in God (which he had overheard me telling my friends) that I should leave.
I never said that scouts did all the work, and we would certainly not do medical procedures, or other activities we were not qualified for. I am on the other hand willing to bet that normal scouts did work setting up stations, putting up flyers, and the like. Also I am sorry you had a bad experience, your leader sounds like one of the old guard i was speaking of earlier my old troop and my whole former district as far as i know uses the learning for life method, or maybe we are just bull shiting texas, it is a definite possibility, so i have never come across something like that happening, and I have talked to scouts all over the north east.
Wow, this is weird... So they allow any religion, as long as you are not doubting the existence of a god, or worse yet, believe there is none at all? Is the role of prime evil shifting from the muslims to the atheists now? Kindof curious how they thought when they changed from christian only to include also other religions, but not include atheists and agnostics.
I always get a bit shocked by this kind of things... Thought I would have learned what to expect from this kind of organisations by now, but nope.
Good that they are removing the gay ban at least, well done.
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.
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.
I dont know about the United States but in my country Boy Scouts is a man/boys club run by Christians and private institutions. I am an eagle scout and i remember very well in our pledges that Boy Scout has a history and commitment as a Christian and Male group. So I dont know if it is openly expressed or not, but I have to agree that Boy Scout is a not for gays and non christians.
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.
also how old is that video, there have been some changes in the government policy fairly recently (by government standards) so that video may predate those changes. Also i would like to point out that well i agree with many points raised by penn and teller, they are just as baised as fox news, just in a direction that i personally ( and you it seems).
On June 07 2012 13:13 Christ the Redeemer wrote: I dont know about the United States but in my country Boy Scouts is a man/boys club run by Christians and private institutions. I am an eagle scout and i remember very well in our pledges that Boy Scout has a history and commitment as a Christian and Male group. So I dont know if it is openly expressed or not, but I have to agree that Boy Scout is a not for gays and non christians.
I think your username implies a slight bias here. Scouting is not limited to Christians. I've encountered everything from Orthodox Jewish troops to Mormons to Muslims.
On June 07 2012 13:13 Christ the Redeemer wrote: I dont know about the United States but in my country Boy Scouts is a man/boys club run by Christians and private institutions. I am an eagle scout and i remember very well in our pledges that Boy Scout has a history and commitment as a Christian and Male group. So I dont know if it is openly expressed or not, but I have to agree that Boy Scout is a not for gays and non christians.
The issue here, isn't that it is excluding gays/non-christians in my mind... It is that it is not a privately funded company, and receives federal spending... If they want to have their little club, and read about how the world was created a few thousand years ago and completely forget about all of the past homosexual priests who swore god was in them... That's their business if they pay for themselves, but if they want to take tax payers money (which frankly, many are not christian and many are gay) than it is completely wrong to not allow any section of people whether belief/sexuality.
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.
also how old is that video, there have been some changes in the government policy fairly recently (by government standards) so that video may predate those changes. Also i would like to point out that well i agree with many points raised by penn and teller, they are just as baised as fox news, just in a direction that i personally ( and you it seems).
I hope that there have indeed been some changes in some public funding policies Just like I hope there will be some changes in how BSA runs their private organization.
And I think that some troops indeed use DADT or don't really care that much about the bigoted policies, or are willing to take risks just so more boys can be included... but I think the fact that the general BSA policy is still prejudicial against the groups that we've identified is quite sad (even if they can do whatever they please, since they're supposed to be a private group). And that's the topic of importance.
It's a bit of a no-brainer; lots of homosexuals lead boy scouts because they get opportunities such as camping trips to take advantage of their position.
I have nothing against homosexuals that don't do this, but some of them do. Better that they save 1 person's life.
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.
also how old is that video, there have been some changes in the government policy fairly recently (by government standards) so that video may predate those changes. Also i would like to point out that well i agree with many points raised by penn and teller, they are just as baised as fox news, just in a direction that i personally ( and you it seems).
I hope that there have indeed been some changes in some public funding policies Just like I hope there will be some changes in how BSA runs their private organization.
And I think that some troops indeed use DADT or don't really care that much about the bigoted policies, or are willing to take risks just so more boys can be included... but I think the fact that the general BSA policy is still prejudicial against the groups that we've identified is quite sad (even if they can do whatever they please, since they're supposed to be a private group). And that's the topic of importance.
I agree with your last point completely that the prejudice is stupid and should change, and i have been throwing my 2 cents around the council i was and still am involved in, to that effect, and have been almost universally agreed with. The problems lies with the main council office in texas ( that's were it is, not a comment on their politics) not with the average scout. Also, go to bed you need your beauty sleep!
On June 07 2012 13:27 SpunXtainz wrote: It's a bit of a no-brainer; lots of homosexuals lead boy scouts because they get opportunities such as camping trips to take advantage of their position.
I have nothing against homosexuals that don't do this, but some of them do. Better that they save 1 person's life.
homie are you for real?
Do you have any idea how man children have been molested by people in the Catholic Church? What do you think their stance on homosexuality is?
The idea that people should be banned to do something based on something that SpunXtainz thinks could happen is abhorent.
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.
Hahaha I really offended you it seems! Idiots...bigots...such defensive words! I'm hurt...not!
First you question me that "being a homosexual is a choice", then you contradict yourself by saying "being an idiot is a choice". How about you go and ask somebody who's mentally challenged if being an "idiot" is a choice. I have conversed with plenty of homosexual people to understand the truth behind their actions which is why I came to my decision that it's a choice.
User was temp banned for general ignorance/trolling post.
On June 07 2012 13:27 SpunXtainz wrote: It's a bit of a no-brainer; lots of homosexuals lead boy scouts because they get opportunities such as camping trips to take advantage of their position.
I have nothing against homosexuals that don't do this, but some of them do. Better that they save 1 person's life.
Its not just boy scouts, should we force all school to have uni sex students and teachers, with no gays of course. Its not like the gays who are honest about wanting to be involved are going to be pedophiles, those ones just lie their way in no matter what the rules are. The only thing that changing this rule would do would be to allow gay men who want to contribute to boy scouting, as opposed to hurt kids, to do so. Its not like being gay makes you a rapist, or attracted to children. Homesexual=! pedophile.
On June 07 2012 13:13 Christ the Redeemer wrote: I dont know about the United States but in my country Boy Scouts is a man/boys club run by Christians and private institutions. I am an eagle scout and i remember very well in our pledges that Boy Scout has a history and commitment as a Christian and Male group. So I dont know if it is openly expressed or not, but I have to agree that Boy Scout is a not for gays and non christians.
I think your username implies a slight bias here. Scouting is not limited to Christians. I've encountered everything from Orthodox Jewish troops to Mormons to Muslims.
I am very much afraid you totally miss the point. Even if I were a Muslim or an atheist, it does not change the fact that historically, iirc, the Boy Scout was a Christian initiated group for young men in order to promote Christian values and camaraderie, with a inclination towards outdoors and adventure. This is expressed and many of the pledges and oaths of the Boy Scouts (but again, I am not sure if the same is true in America). People claiming they should do away with tradition lack context and proper perspective. It is akin to opening NBA to women and the all-male tradition is silly. It is going against the very foundation of the group. If you want a female basketball league, make one, just like America did with WNBA. Now if Muslims, Mormons, gays, atheists, and others want their own values-formation/outdoor groups like Boy Scouts, they have all the freedom in the world to do so.
On June 07 2012 13:27 SpunXtainz wrote: It's a bit of a no-brainer; lots of homosexuals lead boy scouts because they get opportunities such as camping trips to take advantage of their position.
I have nothing against homosexuals that don't do this, but some of them do. Better that they save 1 person's life.
Ok let's examine this post, before I begin I'd like you to cite your sources after please, I find this compelling that you are confident this is the case.
"Lots of homosexuals lead boy scouts" Please attempt to find this and prove this to me "Lots of homosexuals lead boy scouts with the intent of raping boys" Please attempt to find this and prove this to me
"I have nothing against homosexuals" Please attempt to prove that via describing your personal stance, since you obviously have the mentality a racist would towards blacks since you completely generalized the entire grouping of homosexuals to molesters.
I guess in the end, stop making yourself look like an idiot by sputing out random bullshit...
By your logic, Woman should not lead boy scouts becasue they may rape, Religious people should not lead boy scouts because they may rape (see that there, that's a generic statement that generalized priests as rapists, aren't I A BIGOT?).
Let's tone down the stupidity, and start talking facts, not fiction.
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.
Homosexuality is internal while race is external. You can hide homosexuality, but you can't hide what race you are. On your license it doesn't state if your homosexual or not but it does state your race. So, how are you even trying to make an argument about this? lol
If BSOA is held on religious beliefs then I believe that that the organization should respect continue to respect it's morals.
Quite honestly, It's a "choice" to have sex with a man. Homosexual men aren't born with another man bounded to them.
Thoughts lead to choices and choices lead to actions.
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.
Hahaha I really offended you it seems! Idiots...bigots...such defensive words! I'm hurt...not!
First you question me that "being a homosexual is a choice", then you contradict yourself by saying "being an idiot is a choice". How about you go and ask somebody who's mentally challenged if being an "idiot" is a choice. I have conversed with plenty of homosexual people to understand the truth behind their actions which is why I came to my decision that it's a choice.
I don't have a report button, can someone give me a hand and tell me how do I report a user?
Secondly, did I ever once imply you were mentally challenged? I may have called you an idiot (rightfully so) but most definitely not mentally challenged, I'd not want to offend that minority by adding you to their ranks. Also, I highly doubt you've conversed with "plenty" of homosexual people, and I can come to that conclusion because you refer to the fact they enjoy the same sex as "truth behind actions" like it can changed.
So stop trying to justify ignorance, it's impractical.
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.
Homosexuality is internal while race is external. You can hide homosexuality, but you can't hide what race you are. On your license it doesn't state if your homosexual or not but it does state your race. So, how are you even trying to make an argument about this? lol
If BSOA is held on religious beliefs then I believe that that the organization should respect continue to respect it's morals.
I agree completely, you can hide your sexuality, but that does not mean you are choosing it. You just made my case stronger, thanks.
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.
Hahaha I really offended you it seems! Idiots...bigots...such defensive words! I'm hurt...not!
First you question me that "being a homosexual is a choice", then you contradict yourself by saying "being an idiot is a choice". How about you go and ask somebody who's mentally challenged if being an "idiot" is a choice. I have conversed with plenty of homosexual people to understand the truth behind their actions which is why I came to my decision that it's a choice.
I don't have a report button, can someone give me a hand and tell me how do I report a user?
Secondly, did I ever once imply you were mentally challenged? I may have called you an idiot (rightfully so) but most definitely not mentally challenged, I'd not want to offend that minority by adding you to their ranks. Also, I highly doubt you've conversed with "plenty" of homosexual people, and I can come to that conclusion because you refer to the fact they enjoy the same sex as "truth behind actions" like it can changed.
So stop trying to justify ignorance, it's impractical.
According to the definition "idiot" is a term that describes somebody that is mentally challenged. Also, you did call me an idiot, quite directly actually "
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.
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.
Hahaha I really offended you it seems! Idiots...bigots...such defensive words! I'm hurt...not!
First you question me that "being a homosexual is a choice", then you contradict yourself by saying "being an idiot is a choice". How about you go and ask somebody who's mentally challenged if being an "idiot" is a choice. I have conversed with plenty of homosexual people to understand the truth behind their actions which is why I came to my decision that it's a choice.
I don't have a report button, can someone give me a hand and tell me how do I report a user?
Secondly, did I ever once imply you were mentally challenged? I may have called you an idiot (rightfully so) but most definitely not mentally challenged, I'd not want to offend that minority by adding you to their ranks. Also, I highly doubt you've conversed with "plenty" of homosexual people, and I can come to that conclusion because you refer to the fact they enjoy the same sex as "truth behind actions" like it can changed.
So stop trying to justify ignorance, it's impractical.
According to the definition "idiot" is a term that describes somebody that is mentally challenged. Also, you did call me an idiot, quite directly actually "
Being an idiot is a choice, stop choosing it every time you think.
Did you read the first definition? Usually, one comes before two, try the part in which it says "a stupid person". You can really tell a persons argument is so ridiculous that they have to derail it in such a horrifically painful manner. You have such faltered logic, I fear your parents raised you completely wrong.
This conversation is over, I will no longer derail this thread so I can talk to someone who deems sexuality is a choice...
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.
Homosexuality is internal while race is external. You can hide homosexuality, but you can't hide what race you are. On your license it doesn't state if your homosexual or not but it does state your race. So, how are you even trying to make an argument about this? lol
If BSOA is held on religious beliefs then I believe that that the organization should respect continue to respect it's morals.
I agree completely, you can hide your sexuality, but that does not mean you are choosing it. You just made my case stronger, thanks.
It's a "choice" to have sex with the opposite gender. A thought is much different from an action and choice of sexual preference starts from a thought and leads to an actions thus making it a choice to begin with.
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.
Homosexuality is internal while race is external. You can hide homosexuality, but you can't hide what race you are. On your license it doesn't state if your homosexual or not but it does state your race. So, how are you even trying to make an argument about this? lol
If BSOA is held on religious beliefs then I believe that that the organization should respect continue to respect it's morals.
I agree completely, you can hide your sexuality, but that does not mean you are choosing it. You just made my case stronger, thanks.
It's a "choice" to have sex with the opposite gender. A thought is much different from an action and choice of sexual preference starts from a thought and leads to an actions thus making it a choice to begin with.
By your logic all mental illness is a choice as well.
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.
Homosexuality is internal while race is external. You can hide homosexuality, but you can't hide what race you are. On your license it doesn't state if your homosexual or not but it does state your race. So, how are you even trying to make an argument about this? lol
If BSOA is held on religious beliefs then I believe that that the organization should respect continue to respect it's morals.
I agree completely, you can hide your sexuality, but that does not mean you are choosing it. You just made my case stronger, thanks.
It's a "choice" to have sex with the opposite gender. A thought is much different from an action and choice of sexual preference starts from a thought and leads to an actions thus making it a choice to begin with.
When you walk into a bar, and you wish to fuck someone... Tell me, do you stand in the middle of the room choosing if it should be a male or female? If the answer is yes, you are bisexual, if it is male than you are homosexual and if it's female you are heterosexual... So either you're bisexual and are choosing, or you are hetero/homosexual and naturally just fuck that gender...
Simply put, unless you are Bisexual/Asexual than fucking is as much a choice as breathing is.
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.
Homosexuality is internal while race is external. You can hide homosexuality, but you can't hide what race you are. On your license it doesn't state if your homosexual or not but it does state your race. So, how are you even trying to make an argument about this? lol
If BSOA is held on religious beliefs then I believe that that the organization should respect continue to respect it's morals.
I agree completely, you can hide your sexuality, but that does not mean you are choosing it. You just made my case stronger, thanks.
It's a "choice" to have sex with the opposite gender. A thought is much different from an action and choice of sexual preference starts from a thought and leads to an actions thus making it a choice to begin with.
ffs, having sex with someone is a choice, regardless of their sexuality.
Having attraction to somebody (whether it be physical or emotional) is not a choice.
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.
Homosexuality is internal while race is external. You can hide homosexuality, but you can't hide what race you are. On your license it doesn't state if your homosexual or not but it does state your race. So, how are you even trying to make an argument about this? lol
If BSOA is held on religious beliefs then I believe that that the organization should respect continue to respect it's morals.
I agree completely, you can hide your sexuality, but that does not mean you are choosing it. You just made my case stronger, thanks.
It's a "choice" to have sex with the opposite gender. A thought is much different from an action and choice of sexual preference starts from a thought and leads to an actions thus making it a choice to begin with.
You also have a "choice" to hold your breath. Try it. Maybe it will help you understand how homosexuals feel when they have to choose not to be themslves.
If only life were so black and white.
Also, since when did we start choosing our preferences, sexual or otherwise?
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.
Hahaha I really offended you it seems! Idiots...bigots...such defensive words! I'm hurt...not!
First you question me that "being a homosexual is a choice", then you contradict yourself by saying "being an idiot is a choice". How about you go and ask somebody who's mentally challenged if being an "idiot" is a choice. I have conversed with plenty of homosexual people to understand the truth behind their actions which is why I came to my decision that it's a choice.
I don't have a report button, can someone give me a hand and tell me how do I report a user?
Secondly, did I ever once imply you were mentally challenged? I may have called you an idiot (rightfully so) but most definitely not mentally challenged, I'd not want to offend that minority by adding you to their ranks. Also, I highly doubt you've conversed with "plenty" of homosexual people, and I can come to that conclusion because you refer to the fact they enjoy the same sex as "truth behind actions" like it can changed.
So stop trying to justify ignorance, it's impractical.
According to the definition "idiot" is a term that describes somebody that is mentally challenged. Also, you did call me an idiot, quite directly actually "
Being an idiot is a choice, stop choosing it every time you think.
Did you read the first definition? Usually, one comes before two, try the part in which it says "a stupid person". You can really tell a persons argument is so ridiculous that they have to derail it in such a horrifically painful manner. You have such faltered logic, I fear your parents raised you completely wrong.
This conversation is over, I will no longer derail this thread so I can talk to someone who deems sexuality is a choice...
The fact that you are trying to argue the order of which a definition was written is ridiculous lol and the fact that you bring my "parents" into this only shows that your argument is trash. I was just stating my opinion on this BOAS (as we all are), it was your choice to insult me while in the entirety of my statements, I never insulted you. If you don't feel that sexuality is a choice, please enlighten me as to why you believe so rather then directly insulting and assaulting me for my opinion.
EDIT: Any identity can be a Girl Scout- even boys.
The religion thing I can understand here due to the core values that are espoused by the scout oath and law. It's hard to be honest about "doing your duty to god" if you don't believe in any sort of higher entity.
The no gay members policy though is absurd, and even more so in light of the lack of legitimate reasoning.
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.
Homosexuality is internal while race is external. You can hide homosexuality, but you can't hide what race you are. On your license it doesn't state if your homosexual or not but it does state your race. So, how are you even trying to make an argument about this? lol
If BSOA is held on religious beliefs then I believe that that the organization should respect continue to respect it's morals.
I agree completely, you can hide your sexuality, but that does not mean you are choosing it. You just made my case stronger, thanks.
It's a "choice" to have sex with the opposite gender. A thought is much different from an action and choice of sexual preference starts from a thought and leads to an actions thus making it a choice to begin with.
ffs, having sex with someone is a choice, regardless of their sexuality.
Having attraction to somebody (whether it be physical or emotional) is not a choice.
Have you ever chosen to be attracted to a man?
What about straight women who have given up dating men and chose to date women because of the way they were treated in their past relationships? Is that not a choice?
Don't derail this thread trying to argue with someone who actually believes sexuality is a choice. It's not worth it to argue with every idiot that's on the internet.
As for the topic at hand, it seems to me to be a no brainer that gays should be allowed in scouts. Hell, I know I wouldn't want my kids being part of an organization that still believes that being homosexual or an athiest is wrong-we need to encourage open-mindedness, not try to prevent it. Only through open minds can society move forward, so when I see that there's a huge organization designed with the intention of interacting with children, that receives(if indirectly) federal funding, and has incredibly backwards beliefs, that just makes me want to keep my kids away from it.
I think that as time goes on, though, they'll eventually get rid of the anti-gay policies, simply because the younger generation has much more open-minded views on homosexuals. I think what's keeping the policies in place now are the same kind of ultra-religious parents that oppose all things homosexual, especially considering that BSA is a religious group. I can't see these kinds of policies lasting for more than another decade or two.
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.
Hahaha I really offended you it seems! Idiots...bigots...such defensive words! I'm hurt...not!
First you question me that "being a homosexual is a choice", then you contradict yourself by saying "being an idiot is a choice". How about you go and ask somebody who's mentally challenged if being an "idiot" is a choice. I have conversed with plenty of homosexual people to understand the truth behind their actions which is why I came to my decision that it's a choice.
I don't have a report button, can someone give me a hand and tell me how do I report a user?
Secondly, did I ever once imply you were mentally challenged? I may have called you an idiot (rightfully so) but most definitely not mentally challenged, I'd not want to offend that minority by adding you to their ranks. Also, I highly doubt you've conversed with "plenty" of homosexual people, and I can come to that conclusion because you refer to the fact they enjoy the same sex as "truth behind actions" like it can changed.
So stop trying to justify ignorance, it's impractical.
According to the definition "idiot" is a term that describes somebody that is mentally challenged. Also, you did call me an idiot, quite directly actually "
Being an idiot is a choice, stop choosing it every time you think.
Did you read the first definition? Usually, one comes before two, try the part in which it says "a stupid person". You can really tell a persons argument is so ridiculous that they have to derail it in such a horrifically painful manner. You have such faltered logic, I fear your parents raised you completely wrong.
This conversation is over, I will no longer derail this thread so I can talk to someone who deems sexuality is a choice...
The fact that you are trying to argue the order of which a definition was written is ridiculous lol and the fact that you bring my "parents" into this only shows that your argument is trash. I was just stating my opinion on this BOAS (as we all are), it was your choice to insult me while in the entirety of my statements, I never insulted you. If you don't feel that sexuality is a choice, please enlighten me as to why you believe so rather then directly insulting and assaulting me for my opinion.
I'm done with my side of the argument.
Why does it matter whether it's a choice or not? If two adults want to have consensual sex they're not harming anyone else, so why is it your business?
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.
Homosexuality is internal while race is external. You can hide homosexuality, but you can't hide what race you are. On your license it doesn't state if your homosexual or not but it does state your race. So, how are you even trying to make an argument about this? lol
If BSOA is held on religious beliefs then I believe that that the organization should respect continue to respect it's morals.
I agree completely, you can hide your sexuality, but that does not mean you are choosing it. You just made my case stronger, thanks.
It's a "choice" to have sex with the opposite gender. A thought is much different from an action and choice of sexual preference starts from a thought and leads to an actions thus making it a choice to begin with.
ffs, having sex with someone is a choice, regardless of their sexuality.
Having attraction to somebody (whether it be physical or emotional) is not a choice.
Have you ever chosen to be attracted to a man?
What about straight women who have given up dating men and chose to date women because of the way they were treated in their past relationships? Is that not a choice?
So can you provide me some evidence of this, I have never heard of this, much less seen prove of it. My last girlfriend cheated on me, does that mean i can choose to start dating, and being attracted to guys in the hopes they will be more loyal? I don't think it works that way, but feel free to try it yourself and tell me how it goes, preferably by pm's so as to stop derailing this thread.
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.
Hahaha I really offended you it seems! Idiots...bigots...such defensive words! I'm hurt...not!
First you question me that "being a homosexual is a choice", then you contradict yourself by saying "being an idiot is a choice". How about you go and ask somebody who's mentally challenged if being an "idiot" is a choice. I have conversed with plenty of homosexual people to understand the truth behind their actions which is why I came to my decision that it's a choice.
I don't have a report button, can someone give me a hand and tell me how do I report a user?
Secondly, did I ever once imply you were mentally challenged? I may have called you an idiot (rightfully so) but most definitely not mentally challenged, I'd not want to offend that minority by adding you to their ranks. Also, I highly doubt you've conversed with "plenty" of homosexual people, and I can come to that conclusion because you refer to the fact they enjoy the same sex as "truth behind actions" like it can changed.
So stop trying to justify ignorance, it's impractical.
According to the definition "idiot" is a term that describes somebody that is mentally challenged. Also, you did call me an idiot, quite directly actually "
Being an idiot is a choice, stop choosing it every time you think.
Did you read the first definition? Usually, one comes before two, try the part in which it says "a stupid person". You can really tell a persons argument is so ridiculous that they have to derail it in such a horrifically painful manner. You have such faltered logic, I fear your parents raised you completely wrong.
This conversation is over, I will no longer derail this thread so I can talk to someone who deems sexuality is a choice...
The fact that you are trying to argue the order of which a definition was written is ridiculous lol and the fact that you bring my "parents" into this only shows that your argument is trash. I was just stating my opinion on this BOAS (as we all are), it was your choice to insult me while in the entirety of my statements, I never insulted you. If you don't feel that sexuality is a choice, please enlighten me as to why you believe so rather then directly insulting and assaulting me for my opinion.
I'm done with my side of the argument.
Why does it matter whether it's a choice or not? If two adults want to have consensual sex they're not harming anyone else, so why is it your business?
Dude, I never said it was my business. In my opinion they're free to do whatever they please as they should be treated equally.
EDIT: Any identity can be a Girl Scout- even boys.
The religion thing I can understand here due to the core values that are espoused by the scout oath and law. It's hard to be honest about "doing your duty to god" if you don't believe in any sort of higher entity.
The no gay members policy though is absurd, and even more so in light of the lack of legitimate reasoning.
If you hold the religion thing, you kinda have to hold the homosexuality thing too. Now I don't know what brand of Christianity the BSA hold. Quick googling appears to point towards Catholicism - which holds rather strong views on homosexuality.
I'm an eagle scout, and fine with it because someone who's openly gay is far less likely to touch any children. And if anyone planned on touching little boys they probably wouldn't say anything about being gay and could join regardless.
I hope they change their policies and grow up. The scouts is a really good organization, and they do good for the community and youth. But they really shouldn't be discriminating while doing good.
EDIT: Any identity can be a Girl Scout- even boys.
The religion thing I can understand here due to the core values that are espoused by the scout oath and law. It's hard to be honest about "doing your duty to god" if you don't believe in any sort of higher entity.
The no gay members policy though is absurd, and even more so in light of the lack of legitimate reasoning.
If you hold the religion thing, you kinda have to hold the homosexuality thing too. Now I don't know what brand of Christianity the BSA hold. Quick googling appears to point towards Catholicism - which holds rather strong views on homosexuality.
So yeah, keep your kids out of BSA - bottom line.
Not all boy scout troops, or even groups are that way, the troop and council i was in got creative with paper work and the like to allow atheists, and had a don't ask don't tell, as opposed to a strait up ban. Not all boy scouts are are close minded bigots.
EDIT: Any identity can be a Girl Scout- even boys.
The religion thing I can understand here due to the core values that are espoused by the scout oath and law. It's hard to be honest about "doing your duty to god" if you don't believe in any sort of higher entity.
The no gay members policy though is absurd, and even more so in light of the lack of legitimate reasoning.
If you hold the religion thing, you kinda have to hold the homosexuality thing too. Now I don't know what brand of Christianity the BSA hold. Quick googling appears to point towards Catholicism - which holds rather strong views on homosexuality.
So yeah, keep your kids out of BSA - bottom line.
Not all boy scout troops, or even groups are that way, the troop and council i was in got creative with paper work and the like to allow atheists, and had a don't ask don't tell, as opposed to a strait up ban. Not all boy scouts are are close minded bigots.
They're not all all bigots but the organization certainly endorses bigotry.
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.
Homosexuality is internal while race is external. You can hide homosexuality, but you can't hide what race you are. On your license it doesn't state if your homosexual or not but it does state your race. So, how are you even trying to make an argument about this? lol
If BSOA is held on religious beliefs then I believe that that the organization should respect continue to respect it's morals.
I agree completely, you can hide your sexuality, but that does not mean you are choosing it. You just made my case stronger, thanks.
It's a "choice" to have sex with the opposite gender. A thought is much different from an action and choice of sexual preference starts from a thought and leads to an actions thus making it a choice to begin with.
ffs, having sex with someone is a choice, regardless of their sexuality.
Having attraction to somebody (whether it be physical or emotional) is not a choice.
Have you ever chosen to be attracted to a man?
What about straight women who have given up dating men and chose to date women because of the way they were treated in their past relationships? Is that not a choice?
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.
Homosexuality is internal while race is external. You can hide homosexuality, but you can't hide what race you are. On your license it doesn't state if your homosexual or not but it does state your race. So, how are you even trying to make an argument about this? lol
If BSOA is held on religious beliefs then I believe that that the organization should respect continue to respect it's morals.
I agree completely, you can hide your sexuality, but that does not mean you are choosing it. You just made my case stronger, thanks.
It's a "choice" to have sex with the opposite gender. A thought is much different from an action and choice of sexual preference starts from a thought and leads to an actions thus making it a choice to begin with.
ffs, having sex with someone is a choice, regardless of their sexuality.
Having attraction to somebody (whether it be physical or emotional) is not a choice.
Have you ever chosen to be attracted to a man?
What about straight women who have given up dating men and chose to date women because of the way they were treated in their past relationships? Is that not a choice?
I assume that you're trolling?
I assume he's just not very smart or watches too much Fox News. It's funny to me when I hear people say that homosexuality is a choice - maybe they can toggle that shit in their head and suddenly they like the cock. "See, it's a choice!"
EDIT: Any identity can be a Girl Scout- even boys.
The religion thing I can understand here due to the core values that are espoused by the scout oath and law. It's hard to be honest about "doing your duty to god" if you don't believe in any sort of higher entity.
The no gay members policy though is absurd, and even more so in light of the lack of legitimate reasoning.
If you hold the religion thing, you kinda have to hold the homosexuality thing too. Now I don't know what brand of Christianity the BSA hold. Quick googling appears to point towards Catholicism - which holds rather strong views on homosexuality.
So yeah, keep your kids out of BSA - bottom line.
None. I don't think they hold to Christianity either, which is why the gay issue isn't necessarily vetoed via religious convictions.
Basically the reason the "some religious belief required" is because of the Scout Oath of which one of it's major tenants is "to do my duty to God and my country".
As an eagle scout and a person who was active in scouts for nearly ten years I firmly support the acceptance of all male canidates into scouts regardless of sexual identity.
The old guard of scouting who runs BSA are the one who are so vehement to the policy but the actual members themselves, the actual boys, couldn't care less. This policy will definitly change in the next 30 years as, pardon me for being so candid, the older generation die off and more liberal leaders fill their spots.
The world has a lot of growing up to do and it'll happen pretty soon
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.
Homosexuality is internal while race is external. You can hide homosexuality, but you can't hide what race you are. On your license it doesn't state if your homosexual or not but it does state your race. So, how are you even trying to make an argument about this? lol
If BSOA is held on religious beliefs then I believe that that the organization should respect continue to respect it's morals.
I agree completely, you can hide your sexuality, but that does not mean you are choosing it. You just made my case stronger, thanks.
It's a "choice" to have sex with the opposite gender. A thought is much different from an action and choice of sexual preference starts from a thought and leads to an actions thus making it a choice to begin with.
ffs, having sex with someone is a choice, regardless of their sexuality.
Having attraction to somebody (whether it be physical or emotional) is not a choice.
Have you ever chosen to be attracted to a man?
What about straight women who have given up dating men and chose to date women because of the way they were treated in their past relationships? Is that not a choice?
I assume that you're trolling?
I assume he's just not very smart or watches too much Fox News. It's funny to me when I hear people say that homosexuality is a choice - maybe they can toggle that shit in their head and suddenly they like the cock. "See, it's a choice!"
Let me be a little more clear. It "CAN" be a choice. Some people are born that way while others choose to do it.
On June 07 2012 14:18 Djzapz wrote: What's with the 25% of "No" in TL? You people should be ashamed of yourselves.
On June 07 2012 14:15 Hamboigahz wrote:
On June 07 2012 14:03 BlazeFury01 wrote:
On June 07 2012 13:54 Hamboigahz wrote:
On June 07 2012 13:50 BlazeFury01 wrote:
On June 07 2012 13:42 Jaaaaasper wrote:
On June 07 2012 13:39 BlazeFury01 wrote:
On June 07 2012 13:11 Jaaaaasper wrote:
On June 07 2012 13:08 BlazeFury01 wrote: [quote]
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.
Homosexuality is internal while race is external. You can hide homosexuality, but you can't hide what race you are. On your license it doesn't state if your homosexual or not but it does state your race. So, how are you even trying to make an argument about this? lol
If BSOA is held on religious beliefs then I believe that that the organization should respect continue to respect it's morals.
I agree completely, you can hide your sexuality, but that does not mean you are choosing it. You just made my case stronger, thanks.
It's a "choice" to have sex with the opposite gender. A thought is much different from an action and choice of sexual preference starts from a thought and leads to an actions thus making it a choice to begin with.
ffs, having sex with someone is a choice, regardless of their sexuality.
Having attraction to somebody (whether it be physical or emotional) is not a choice.
Have you ever chosen to be attracted to a man?
What about straight women who have given up dating men and chose to date women because of the way they were treated in their past relationships? Is that not a choice?
I assume that you're trolling?
I assume he's just not very smart or watches too much Fox News. It's funny to me when I hear people say that homosexuality is a choice - maybe they can toggle that shit in their head and suddenly they like the cock. "See, it's a choice!"
Let me be a little more clear. It "CAN" be a choice. Some people are born that way while others choose to do it.
If you are choosing then that would make you bisexual not gay.
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.
On June 07 2012 14:18 Djzapz wrote: What's with the 25% of "No" in TL? You people should be ashamed of yourselves.
On June 07 2012 14:15 Hamboigahz wrote:
On June 07 2012 14:03 BlazeFury01 wrote:
On June 07 2012 13:54 Hamboigahz wrote:
On June 07 2012 13:50 BlazeFury01 wrote:
On June 07 2012 13:42 Jaaaaasper wrote:
On June 07 2012 13:39 BlazeFury01 wrote:
On June 07 2012 13:11 Jaaaaasper wrote:
On June 07 2012 13:08 BlazeFury01 wrote: [quote]
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.
Homosexuality is internal while race is external. You can hide homosexuality, but you can't hide what race you are. On your license it doesn't state if your homosexual or not but it does state your race. So, how are you even trying to make an argument about this? lol
If BSOA is held on religious beliefs then I believe that that the organization should respect continue to respect it's morals.
I agree completely, you can hide your sexuality, but that does not mean you are choosing it. You just made my case stronger, thanks.
It's a "choice" to have sex with the opposite gender. A thought is much different from an action and choice of sexual preference starts from a thought and leads to an actions thus making it a choice to begin with.
ffs, having sex with someone is a choice, regardless of their sexuality.
Having attraction to somebody (whether it be physical or emotional) is not a choice.
Have you ever chosen to be attracted to a man?
What about straight women who have given up dating men and chose to date women because of the way they were treated in their past relationships? Is that not a choice?
I assume that you're trolling?
I assume he's just not very smart or watches too much Fox News. It's funny to me when I hear people say that homosexuality is a choice - maybe they can toggle that shit in their head and suddenly they like the cock. "See, it's a choice!"
Let me be a little more clear. It "CAN" be a choice. Some people are born that way while others choose to do it.
stop. just stop. You are grasping at straws here.
No straight man would choose to have sex with another man just because the option is there
I'm proud that my council allows openly gay scouts.A while back there was a gay scout in our troop. He ended up quitting because of national organization's prejudice, which is a shame, because god damn he could cook.
On June 07 2012 14:18 Djzapz wrote: What's with the 25% of "No" in TL? You people should be ashamed of yourselves.
On June 07 2012 14:15 Hamboigahz wrote:
On June 07 2012 14:03 BlazeFury01 wrote:
On June 07 2012 13:54 Hamboigahz wrote:
On June 07 2012 13:50 BlazeFury01 wrote:
On June 07 2012 13:42 Jaaaaasper wrote:
On June 07 2012 13:39 BlazeFury01 wrote:
On June 07 2012 13:11 Jaaaaasper wrote:
On June 07 2012 13:08 BlazeFury01 wrote: [quote]
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.
Homosexuality is internal while race is external. You can hide homosexuality, but you can't hide what race you are. On your license it doesn't state if your homosexual or not but it does state your race. So, how are you even trying to make an argument about this? lol
If BSOA is held on religious beliefs then I believe that that the organization should respect continue to respect it's morals.
I agree completely, you can hide your sexuality, but that does not mean you are choosing it. You just made my case stronger, thanks.
It's a "choice" to have sex with the opposite gender. A thought is much different from an action and choice of sexual preference starts from a thought and leads to an actions thus making it a choice to begin with.
ffs, having sex with someone is a choice, regardless of their sexuality.
Having attraction to somebody (whether it be physical or emotional) is not a choice.
Have you ever chosen to be attracted to a man?
What about straight women who have given up dating men and chose to date women because of the way they were treated in their past relationships? Is that not a choice?
I assume that you're trolling?
I assume he's just not very smart or watches too much Fox News. It's funny to me when I hear people say that homosexuality is a choice - maybe they can toggle that shit in their head and suddenly they like the cock. "See, it's a choice!"
Let me be a little more clear. It "CAN" be a choice. Some people are born that way while others choose to do it.
A vast majority of women who have sexual relationships with women are actually attracted to women and a crushing majority of men who have sexual relationships with men are attracted to men. [Note that this line was incredibly awkward to write because of the massive concessions I have to make in order to make such a silly statement]
Yes sure a few women are just so disgusted by men that they choose to be with women instead - but in this case, they either don't actually feel sexually attracted to women and still do it for whatever personal reason they may have, or they were bisexual in the first place.
Either way, let's not split them into two categories pretending they're equal. A handful of oddball cases that border on being insignificant has no weight on real world issues.
On June 07 2012 14:18 Djzapz wrote: What's with the 25% of "No" in TL? You people should be ashamed of yourselves.
On June 07 2012 14:15 Hamboigahz wrote:
On June 07 2012 14:03 BlazeFury01 wrote:
On June 07 2012 13:54 Hamboigahz wrote:
On June 07 2012 13:50 BlazeFury01 wrote:
On June 07 2012 13:42 Jaaaaasper wrote:
On June 07 2012 13:39 BlazeFury01 wrote:
On June 07 2012 13:11 Jaaaaasper wrote: [quote] 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.
Homosexuality is internal while race is external. You can hide homosexuality, but you can't hide what race you are. On your license it doesn't state if your homosexual or not but it does state your race. So, how are you even trying to make an argument about this? lol
If BSOA is held on religious beliefs then I believe that that the organization should respect continue to respect it's morals.
I agree completely, you can hide your sexuality, but that does not mean you are choosing it. You just made my case stronger, thanks.
It's a "choice" to have sex with the opposite gender. A thought is much different from an action and choice of sexual preference starts from a thought and leads to an actions thus making it a choice to begin with.
ffs, having sex with someone is a choice, regardless of their sexuality.
Having attraction to somebody (whether it be physical or emotional) is not a choice.
Have you ever chosen to be attracted to a man?
What about straight women who have given up dating men and chose to date women because of the way they were treated in their past relationships? Is that not a choice?
I assume that you're trolling?
I assume he's just not very smart or watches too much Fox News. It's funny to me when I hear people say that homosexuality is a choice - maybe they can toggle that shit in their head and suddenly they like the cock. "See, it's a choice!"
Let me be a little more clear. It "CAN" be a choice. Some people are born that way while others choose to do it.
stop. just stop. You are grasping at straws here.
No straight man would choose to have sex with another man just because the option is there
lol man, you would be surprised to know the truth about that.
I will say on the overall topic Im not sure how many gay scouts would take advantage of any potential rule change to be openly gay while in the BSA. I can imagine some scout leaders taking advantage of it but I just cant see many of the actual scouts coming out and being openly gay.
Wait...why is America so backwards on these things.
I was a scout leader in the UK and I knew 1 or 2 gay leaders, but knew kids who were openly gay. I mean shit man, we're people regardless. Having a gay scout leader won't put your kids in any more danger than a straight leader. Theres not a higher risk of having a scout molested by a gay leader or a straight....and as far as I'm aware homosexuality isn't catchy.
I can understand sex offenders, I can understand people with a major criminal charge....but to be gay? Fuck the BSA if they don't relieve this. The Scout Association has no restrictions in the UK and thats how it should be
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 =/
On June 07 2012 13:27 SpunXtainz wrote: It's a bit of a no-brainer; lots of homosexuals lead boy scouts because they get opportunities such as camping trips to take advantage of their position.
I have nothing against homosexuals that don't do this, but some of them do. Better that they save 1 person's life.
I saw this same kind of argument earlier in the thread, but held my tongue in the hope that it was a one-off thing. I guess my hopes were misplaced.
Plenty of people have been killed by drunk drivers, better ban alcohol and cars.
People have been electrocuted by downed power lines, better ban electricity.
On June 07 2012 13:27 SpunXtainz wrote: It's a bit of a no-brainer; lots of homosexuals lead boy scouts because they get opportunities such as camping trips to take advantage of their position.
I have nothing against homosexuals that don't do this, but some of them do. Better that they save 1 person's life.
I saw this same kind of argument earlier in the thread, but held my tongue in the hope that it was a one-off thing. I guess my hopes were misplaced.
Plenty of people have been killed by drunk drivers, better ban alcohol and cars.
People have been electrocuted by downed power lines, better ban electricity.
On June 07 2012 14:18 Djzapz wrote: What's with the 25% of "No" in TL? You people should be ashamed of yourselves.
On June 07 2012 14:15 Hamboigahz wrote:
On June 07 2012 14:03 BlazeFury01 wrote:
On June 07 2012 13:54 Hamboigahz wrote:
On June 07 2012 13:50 BlazeFury01 wrote:
On June 07 2012 13:42 Jaaaaasper wrote:
On June 07 2012 13:39 BlazeFury01 wrote: [quote]
Homosexuality is internal while race is external. You can hide homosexuality, but you can't hide what race you are. On your license it doesn't state if your homosexual or not but it does state your race. So, how are you even trying to make an argument about this? lol
If BSOA is held on religious beliefs then I believe that that the organization should respect continue to respect it's morals.
I agree completely, you can hide your sexuality, but that does not mean you are choosing it. You just made my case stronger, thanks.
It's a "choice" to have sex with the opposite gender. A thought is much different from an action and choice of sexual preference starts from a thought and leads to an actions thus making it a choice to begin with.
ffs, having sex with someone is a choice, regardless of their sexuality.
Having attraction to somebody (whether it be physical or emotional) is not a choice.
Have you ever chosen to be attracted to a man?
What about straight women who have given up dating men and chose to date women because of the way they were treated in their past relationships? Is that not a choice?
I assume that you're trolling?
I assume he's just not very smart or watches too much Fox News. It's funny to me when I hear people say that homosexuality is a choice - maybe they can toggle that shit in their head and suddenly they like the cock. "See, it's a choice!"
Let me be a little more clear. It "CAN" be a choice. Some people are born that way while others choose to do it.
stop. just stop. You are grasping at straws here.
No straight man would choose to have sex with another man just because the option is there
lol man, you would be surprised to know the truth about that.
It is true that lots of straight guys have gay sex for fun but I have never heard of a straight man having a serious boyfriend/life partner/husband though (speaking as a gay man myself). There is an ineffable quality of intimacy that we all share when we find those special partners and sexuality is a big part of it. The act itself, independent of all this, is just a really really good time lol.
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.
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 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 totally agree that they shouldn't be forced to allow gays, but by that same reasoning I'm allowed to refute poor arguments. I don't believe most of the debate has been about whether or not they should be allowed to do this, but rather why they do it in the first place, at least that's what I've been debating about.
My position is basically that while I disagree with their position, and so far haven't seen any ironclad arguments in favor of their position, its ultimately their choice to make.
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 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 totally agree that they shouldn't be forced to allow gays, but by that same reasoning I'm allowed to refute poor arguments. I don't believe most of the debate has been about whether or not they should be allowed to do this, but rather why they do it in the first place, at least that's what I've been debating about.
My position is basically that while I disagree with their position, and so far haven't seen any ironclad arguments in favor of their position, its ultimately their choice to make.
The problem with debating whether or not they "should" (from what I take you to mean is a moral position) is that it will never end. That would move on to the morality of homosexuality itself. If you think it's wrong, then you say no. You think it's fine, you say yes. now, on TL a consensus may be reached (considering that the the vast majority of TL'ers seem to agree on many of these things), but it is hardly an accurate representation of the USA or anyone else considering this policy.
So in short I don't even know why I'm in this thread. Nothing is going to actually be accomplished, that's for sure.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
Are the boy scouts a male-only organization? Because if they are this isn't as much about introducing gays in there as it is about introducing sex in there, and that's a whole different issue.
On June 07 2012 20:49 Kickboxer wrote: Are the boy scouts a male-only organization? Because if they are this isn't as much about introducing gays in there as it is about introducing sex in there, and that's a whole different issue.
According to the standard policy that's been cited several times, no girls are supposed to be allowed into the BSA.
That being said, apparently some troops and troop leaders are more lenient and have allowed some girls in (in the same way that the occasional homosexual or atheist have been allowed too, against the official rules).
On June 07 2012 20:49 Kickboxer wrote: Are the boy scouts a male-only organization? Because if they are this isn't as much about introducing gays in there as it is about introducing sex in there, and that's a whole different issue.
Allowing male homosexuals into a male-only organization doesn't "introduce sex in there" any more than a school teacher teaching opposite-sex students does.
On June 07 2012 20:49 Kickboxer wrote: Are the boy scouts a male-only organization? Because if they are this isn't as much about introducing gays in there as it is about introducing sex in there, and that's a whole different issue.
Allowing male homosexuals into a male-only organization doesn't "introduce sex in there" any more than a school teacher teaching opposite-sex students does.
Good, it's about time. But, like everything else, realize while that changing official policy is important for big-picture reasons, the actual environment in actual troops is what counts. I'm sure troops in East Bumfuck, Alabama will discriminate against whoever they please, regardless of official policy, and troops in Hippytown, Vermont will not, regardless of official policy.
Re: the Penn and Teller video, I only watched part of it, because I don't have half an hour to dick around listening to some guy rant on youtube, but I got the idea. Yeah, the official policy is bullshit, and some places actually run that way, and that's bullshit too. Agreed. Don't need half an hour to say that. You know what else is bullshit? That someone who hated camping and being outside joined the boy scouts and stayed there for what sounded like an extended period of time, and then got bitter about it. Why the fuck would you join the BSA if you hate doing basically all the things the BSA does?
Re: atheists in BSA. Again, this comes down to how individual troops are run. There are no corporate honchos coming down to check up on your troop to make sure everyone's following company policy. It's just a bunch of teenage dudes, and a few of their parents volunteering to oversee the show. I'm an Eagle scout, and I was very open about being an atheist. Nobody gave a fuck, because I live in New England where people are generally accepting as long as you're a reasonable person. The only time it ever came up was in my Eagle court, where you're asked about all the points of the Scout Law, one of which is "reverence". I simply said that if anything, it's a little simple-minded to interpret that as loyalty to religion X; it should mean being mindful of the consequences of your actions, and being respectful of the people and things around you. Which is true.
On June 07 2012 21:16 Evangelist wrote: I am confident most first world bigotry will die off pretty soon. The internet's killing it pretty fast.
Don't have too high hopes, lad. Bigotry will never be abolished as long as there are humans, and that's a good thing.
Why is it a good thing that there will always be bigotry? Shouldn't we be striving to mimize (and eventually erase all) prejudice so that everyone can be treated fairly?
Also, I do wonder how effective the internet has been at circulating hate or anti-hate. I feel like spreading education, policy, and ridicule of bigoted groups has helped, but I wonder if anyone has found any statistics or correlations (or if such a thing can actually be quantified to begin with).
gays should be allowed to be members, but not leaders. i cant get all these catholic priest incidents from the UK out of my head. i have nothing against gays, but sometimes it could be a bit much putting a homosexual man in charge of a group of teenagers that go on camping trips and the such.
On June 08 2012 04:06 CptCutter wrote: gays should be allowed to be members, but not leaders. i cant get all these catholic priest incidents from the UK out of my head. i have nothing against gays, but sometimes it could be a bit much putting a homosexual man in charge of a group of teenagers that go on camping trips and the such.
Except you clearly do have something against them. Your post is contradictory. You say you have no problem, but if that were true then you wouldn't care. So obviously you have a problem, but you are just in denial about it. Being gay doesn't make someone a potential pedophile.
On June 08 2012 04:06 CptCutter wrote: gays should be allowed to be members, but not leaders. i cant get all these catholic priest incidents from the UK out of my head. i have nothing against gays, but sometimes it could be a bit much putting a homosexual man in charge of a group of teenagers that go on camping trips and the such.
Gays and paedophiles are very different things. How many of those Catholic priests were openly gay?
On June 08 2012 04:06 CptCutter wrote: gays should be allowed to be members, but not leaders. i cant get all these catholic priest incidents from the UK out of my head. i have nothing against gays, but sometimes it could be a bit much putting a homosexual man in charge of a group of teenagers that go on camping trips and the such.
Why do we allow males to be teachers at all? 99 percent of sexual abuse comes from males. I think for you to be consistent in your beliefs you'd have to be against allowing males to teach minors in high school and grade school. The vast majority of sexual abusers are straight.
On June 08 2012 04:06 CptCutter wrote: gays should be allowed to be members, but not leaders. i cant get all these catholic priest incidents from the UK out of my head. i have nothing against gays, but sometimes it could be a bit much putting a homosexual man in charge of a group of teenagers that go on camping trips and the such.
Why do we allow males to be teachers at all? 99 percent of sexual abuse comes from males. I think for you to be consistent in your beliefs you'd have to be against allowing males to teach minors in high school and grade school. The vast majority of sexual abusers are straight.
Well, the vast majority of men are straight, so that's kind of useless. 99% of sexual abuse comes from males? I think it's high, but not that high.
But yea, there's no correlation between pedophilia and homosexuality.
Again, they can do whatever they want if they stop getting my tax dollars. I don't want to support an organization that discriminates in ANY way, lesbians, gays, transgender, black, white, asian, arab, man, woman, intersexed, catholic, muslim, jewish, atheist, agnostic, high class, low class, etc etc etc. Unfortunately, with taxes, you don't have much of a choice--two things are sure in life, death and taxes. Stop the hateful policies, or stop getting your federal funding.
On June 08 2012 04:06 CptCutter wrote: gays should be allowed to be members, but not leaders. i cant get all these catholic priest incidents from the UK out of my head. i have nothing against gays, but sometimes it could be a bit much putting a homosexual man in charge of a group of teenagers that go on camping trips and the such.
Why do we allow males to be teachers at all? 99 percent of sexual abuse comes from males. I think for you to be consistent in your beliefs you'd have to be against allowing males to teach minors in high school and grade school. The vast majority of sexual abusers are straight.
Well, the vast majority of men are straight, so that's kind of useless. 99% of sexual abuse comes from males? I think it's high, but not that high.
But yea, there's no correlation between pedophilia and homosexuality.
So you think that gay men are more likely to abuse boys than straight men are? I find that very unlikely. In fact, I cannot recall hearing of any cases of openly gay paedophiles.
Edit: Sorry, I misinterpreted. I agree the reason that most paedophiles are straight is because most men are straight. I would not be surprised if 99% of reported paedophiles are men.
On June 08 2012 04:06 CptCutter wrote: gays should be allowed to be members, but not leaders. i cant get all these catholic priest incidents from the UK out of my head. i have nothing against gays, but sometimes it could be a bit much putting a homosexual man in charge of a group of teenagers that go on camping trips and the such.
Why do we allow males to be teachers at all? 99 percent of sexual abuse comes from males. I think for you to be consistent in your beliefs you'd have to be against allowing males to teach minors in high school and grade school. The vast majority of sexual abusers are straight.
Well, the vast majority of men are straight, so that's kind of useless. 99% of sexual abuse comes from males? I think it's high, but not that high.
But yea, there's no correlation between pedophilia and homosexuality.
So you think that gay men are more likely to abuse boys than straight men are? I find that very unlikely. In fact, I cannot recall hearing of any cases of openly gay paedophiles.
...you misread me, I think. I said the exact opposite of that first sentence.
He said the vast majority of sexual abusers are straight. Well that's useless, because the vast majority of people are straight.
On June 08 2012 04:29 hzflank wrote: So you think that gay men are more likely to abuse boys than straight men are? I find that very unlikely. In fact, I cannot recall hearing of any cases of openly gay paedophiles.
Edit: Sorry, I misinterpreted. I agree the reason that most paedophiles are straight is because most men are straight. I would not be surprised if 99% of reported paedophiles are men.
For starters, there is NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) and its members who have made headline after headline the past few decades. They oppose the age of consent laws for relationships between men and adolescent males/boys. During the beginning of the LGBT (gay rights movement) gaining support and momentum in the 1970s, NAMBLA tried to associate themselves within the gay movement but this was met with a lot of resistance to the point that gay groups actively stopped NAMBLA from participating in rallies and parades. Continuing scandals in the 1980s led to further distancing of the gay rights movement from pedophilia and were removed from the International Lesbian and Gay Association in the early 1990s for supporting pedophilia after the UN threatened to remove their status. Check out the 1994 documentary, Chicken Hawk: Men Who Love Boys.
They should let Homosexual Scouts of course. Still won't change the awful experience of camping in the Boy Scouts, freezing cold, crap food, all for a stupid badge
The Boy Scouts of America banning gay people is 100 percent completely reasonable. It is a social club. A club with their own rules and policies. It is also completely legal because in their bi-laws they state no homosexuals should participate. I mean nobody allows open and practicing Muslims in Catholics parishes. White people in Black student Scholarship funds.
The boy scouts is an idea, and unfortunately homosexuals do not conform to that idea. If they wanted to be part of the Boy scouts they should you know, stop being gay.
This may seem to be a bigoted position, but it is a Christian organization. Homosexuality presents a lifestyle that is not Christian. I mean, why don't gay people start a Boy Scouts esq organization that accepts all kinds of ideals. It is a group for like minded people. Gay people are not like minded in the sense of the Boy Scouts of America.
Edit: It is wrong for the Transportation system to discriminant because it is not a private industry. It is a completely public industry. I mean the only reason a restaurant can not decline serving black people is because of the idea of a centrally planned economy. If it was a completely capitalist economy, discrimination if anything is enforced. I mean sure, if you wanted to make clubs and organizations publically owned then sure, lets have the government control everything. But if you still want an organization to be privately owned, and let them to do them, then leave them be to their own ideals.
On June 08 2012 05:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: They should let Homosexual Scouts of course. Still won't change the awful experience of camping in the Boy Scouts, freezing cold, crap food, all for a stupid badge
You must have been in the wrong troop, mine held lan pasties and ordered pizza, and we also knew how to cook, and i assume they still do. We once held a lan party in a cabin in the middle of winter, and played halo 1 and open source games and bw, and ate solely out of a deep fryer, for a weekend.
On June 08 2012 05:42 RodrigoX wrote: The Boy Scouts of America banning gay people is 100 percent completely reasonable. It is a social club. A club with their own rules and policies. It is also completely legal because in their bi-laws they state no homosexuals should participate. I mean nobody allows open and practicing Muslims in Catholics parishes. White people in Black student Scholarship funds.
The boy scouts is an idea, and unfortunately homosexuals do not conform to that idea. If they wanted to be part of the Boy scouts they should you know, stop being gay.
This may seem to be a bigoted position, but it is a Christian organization. Homosexuality presents a lifestyle that is not Christian. I mean, why don't gay people start a Boy Scouts esq organization that accepts all kinds of ideals. It is a group for like minded people. Gay people are not like minded in the sense of the Boy Scouts of America.
Edit: It is wrong for the Transportation system to discriminant because it is not a private industry. It is a completely public industry. I mean the only reason a restaurant can not decline serving black people is because of the idea of a centrally planned economy. If it was a completely capitalist economy, discrimination if anything is enforced. I mean sure, if you wanted to make clubs and organizations publically owned then sure, lets have the government control everything. But if you still want an organization to be privately owned, and let them to do them, then leave them be to their own ideals.
On June 08 2012 05:55 Noelani wrote: Do any gay kids even want to join the boy scouts? Aren't they too busy playing dress-up and with doll houses and stuff?
Seems to me this is another fight that gays have picked just so they can argue about something.
Should the boy scouts allow girls to join too? Seems sexist that they don't.
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...
Oh you. Just because someone is gay doesn't make them feminine at all. The truth is, you wouldn't be able to tell most gay men from straight men from the way they act because most gay men aren't flamboyant at all.
I think it is a misjudgement that most gay men can't me told apart from straight ones. Almost all of the gay people I know are quite feminine.
Exactly. All the gay people you know are gay are quite feminine. The point I was trying to make is that with the majority of gay people, you wouldn't KNOW they were gay because they're not obvious about it. You probably know plenty of gay people that you don't actually know are gay because they're not flamboyant about it.
On June 08 2012 05:55 Noelani wrote: Do any gay kids even want to join the boy scouts? Aren't they too busy playing dress-up and with doll houses and stuff?
Seems to me this is another fight that gays have picked just so they can argue about something.
Should the boy scouts allow girls to join too? Seems sexist that they don't.
Playing dress up? Are you for real? Where do you get these ideas? W/e you probably won't respond anyway.
On June 08 2012 05:55 Noelani wrote: Do any gay kids even want to join the boy scouts? Aren't they too busy playing dress-up and with doll houses and stuff?
Seems to me this is another fight that gays have picked just so they can argue about something.
Should the boy scouts allow girls to join too? Seems sexist that they don't.
I imagine that you said this while shirtless, leaning on your truck and chewing some corn.
'Whassat? Gays wan' be in the mil'tary? Ain't they too busy makin' cakes an' wearin' panties and stuff? Sheeeeeeit.'
On June 08 2012 05:55 Noelani wrote: Do any gay kids even want to join the boy scouts? Aren't they too busy playing dress-up and with doll houses and stuff?
Seems to me this is another fight that gays have picked just so they can argue about something.
Should the boy scouts allow girls to join too? Seems sexist that they don't.
Wow...Are you kidding? Could you possibly be any more ignorant and crass?
Some of the comments in this thread are just pathetic.
On June 08 2012 05:55 Noelani wrote: Do any gay kids even want to join the boy scouts? Aren't they too busy playing dress-up and with doll houses and stuff?
Seems to me this is another fight that gays have picked just so they can argue about something.
Should the boy scouts allow girls to join too? Seems sexist that they don't.
Playing dress up? Are you for real? Where do you get these ideas? W/e you probably won't respond anyway.
he's got that popcorn motherfucker set as his mood. probably just stirring shit up... I hope so, anyway.
I've never understood the stereotype that gay = feminine. How does that make sense? How is that even supposed to make sense? Lets face it: fucking men has got to be the most masculine thing you could possibly do.
The fact is that men in general are actually quite feminine (and women are quite masculine). People just have confirmation bias when it comes to gays.
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 made me burst out laughing. The wording makes it seem like being openly gay is some kind of wondrous treat and being able to supervise boys is being able to savor that delicious morsel. You may want to undergo some deep introspection to see if you might actually want to kiss men.
Many current Boy Scouts and adult leaders are gay. Some join BECAUSE they are gay and want a place to meet guys. Generally, keeping it on the down low is required or at least masquerading as humor.
I hope they make this official; it will mean a large step forward for the organization.
Edit: On a related note, female adult leaders and female employees are pretty ubiquitous in the organization. It's really not a big deal.
You can't compare for example the job market and the military to the boy scouts. Lets not demolish everything to fix a problem. I also anticipate a lot of predators to abuse something like 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.
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.
Was anyone here a Boy Scout in a troop that was openly anti-gay?
Maybe I had an odd troop, because we weren't church-sponsored, but we had at least one gay kid in our troop that we knew of. Just because the BSA formalized some anti-gay policy doesn't mean the uniforms wouldn't fit on gay kids or that they're coming around with the gaydar and kicking out anyone who pings. If your troop wasn't homophobic, my experience with mine, and what I'm guessing was other scouts' experience as well, was that they weren't going to kick you out over "policy."
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/06/12086046-boy-scouts-review-controversial-anti-gay-policy?lite The new policy would throw out the national ban and allow local chartering organizations to decide whether or not they would accept gay youth and leaders, said Zach Wahls, an Eagle Scout who has advocated for the change, citing unidentified people he spoke to who attended the group's national annual meeting last week where the proposal was made.
This change isn't nearly as big a change as anyone is making it out to be. The national organization is NEVER attending local scout meetings, telling you who can and can't be in your troop. If anyone has been anti-gay, it's been at the troop and council level, more local, and the change just keeps that in place.
All this does is maybe open up troops that were fine with gay scouts but for some reason not allowing it because that was "policy." Which I'm guessing is a very, very low number.
why would someone's sexual orientation be revealed when joining a group? WTF you're just a boyscout who cares if someone is gay or not?
also, the gay discrimination issue seems to be brought up way too often, especially from what i see in US related news articles. It's like the US preocupation, gay rights, gay marriage, gay bla bla bla. Society has other major problems in 2012, people should focus more on the stuff that matters
On June 08 2012 05:42 RodrigoX wrote: The Boy Scouts of America banning gay people is 100 percent completely reasonable. It is a social club. A club with their own rules and policies. It is also completely legal because in their bi-laws they state no homosexuals should participate. I mean nobody allows open and practicing Muslims in Catholics parishes. White people in Black student Scholarship funds.
The boy scouts is an idea, and unfortunately homosexuals do not conform to that idea. If they wanted to be part of the Boy scouts they should you know, stop being gay.
This may seem to be a bigoted position, but it is a Christian organization. Homosexuality presents a lifestyle that is not Christian. I mean, why don't gay people start a Boy Scouts esq organization that accepts all kinds of ideals. It is a group for like minded people. Gay people are not like minded in the sense of the Boy Scouts of America.
Edit: It is wrong for the Transportation system to discriminant because it is not a private industry. It is a completely public industry. I mean the only reason a restaurant can not decline serving black people is because of the idea of a centrally planned economy. If it was a completely capitalist economy, discrimination if anything is enforced. I mean sure, if you wanted to make clubs and organizations publically owned then sure, lets have the government control everything. But if you still want an organization to be privately owned, and let them to do them, then leave them be to their own ideals.
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.
On June 08 2012 07:39 Psychobabas wrote: I say No.
You can't compare for example the job market and the military to the boy scouts. Lets not demolish everything to fix a problem. I also anticipate a lot of predators to abuse something like this.
But again, tax payer dollars are going directly towards these groups.
It really comes down to a choice of keeping that funding and stopping their non-sense (the preferable choice, because scouts does a lot of good for youth) or keep their ways and find methods to get their own money.
On June 08 2012 07:55 Manimal_pro wrote: why would someone's sexual orientation be revealed when joining a group? WTF you're just a boyscout who cares if someone is gay or not?
also, the gay discrimination issue seems to be brought up way too often, especially from what i see in US related news articles. It's like the US preocupation, gay rights, gay marriage, gay bla bla bla. Society has other major problems in 2012, people should focus more on the stuff that matters
Some people aren't legally "people" yet, so they can't focus on other stuff that really DOES matter more. Not sure why everyone can't just grow up, but maybe in a few decades when all the ol' folk are gone, society can actually grow and focus on harder issues.
Sexual orientation has nothing to do with competence. The contrary is a barbarian idea from the past and should be eradicated. I fully support this resolution and I find it completely unfair that people can't join Boy Scouts simply because they are gay.
I would feel as awkward sending my sons to go sleep in a tent with gay grown men as I would sending my daughter of the same age to sleep in a tent with heterosexual grown men.
Seems like the BSA might have a reason to strike the resolution down.
On June 08 2012 08:08 Savio wrote: I would feel as awkward sending my sons to go sleep in a tent with gay grown men as I would sending my daughter of the same age to sleep in a tent with heterosexual grown men.
Seems like the BSA might have a reason to strike the resolution down.
On June 08 2012 08:08 Savio wrote: I would feel as awkward sending my sons to go sleep in a tent with gay grown men as I would sending my daughter of the same age to sleep in a tent with heterosexual grown men.
Seems like the BSA might have a reason to strike the resolution down.
Doesn't seem all that complicated to me.
Why? Are all gay men sexual predators?
Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way.
That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men.
IMO the biggest voice which would make any change, lasting or not, is the customers.
Whatever policy the Boy Scouts decide upon, if their customer base does not dwindle but in fact remains stable or grows, then that would be a fairly accurate indicator on how the public as a whole feels regarding the situation.
On June 08 2012 08:08 Savio wrote: I would feel as awkward sending my sons to go sleep in a tent with gay grown men as I would sending my daughter of the same age to sleep in a tent with heterosexual grown men.
Seems like the BSA might have a reason to strike the resolution down.
Doesn't seem all that complicated to me.
Ehhhh just because you let gays join up doesn't mean that there's going to suddenly be close bodily contact going on.
im kinda happy i live in a country in which such situation would just make huge LOL. on the side note what would happen if suddenly everyone would start being homo ?XD world would die?
On June 08 2012 08:08 Savio wrote: I would feel as awkward sending my sons to go sleep in a tent with gay grown men as I would sending my daughter of the same age to sleep in a tent with heterosexual grown men.
Seems like the BSA might have a reason to strike the resolution down.
Doesn't seem all that complicated to me.
Ehhhh just because you let gays join up doesn't mean that there's going to suddenly be close bodily contact going on.
Hence, why I would feel the same sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would feel sending my son with homosexual men. Either way, there shouldn't be contact, but the worry would be there.
Which is why I would feel the same either way.
Its not a very complicated concept. It basically means having the same concern for homosexuality as you do for heterosexuality.
While I have nothing against gay people and support gay marraige, I think that the scouts should be able to decide on a troop by troop basis who they want their scout leader to be. Gay, Straight, or whatever. Its all about the person to me, people aren't defined by who they are attracted to.
On June 08 2012 08:08 Savio wrote: I would feel as awkward sending my sons to go sleep in a tent with gay grown men as I would sending my daughter of the same age to sleep in a tent with heterosexual grown men.
Seems like the BSA might have a reason to strike the resolution down.
Doesn't seem all that complicated to me.
Why? Are all gay men sexual predators?
Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way.
That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men.
Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you?
On June 08 2012 08:21 NoDDiE wrote: im kinda happy i live in a country in which such situation would just make huge LOL. on the side note what would happen if suddenly everyone would start being homo ?XD world would die?
On June 08 2012 08:08 Savio wrote: I would feel as awkward sending my sons to go sleep in a tent with gay grown men as I would sending my daughter of the same age to sleep in a tent with heterosexual grown men.
Seems like the BSA might have a reason to strike the resolution down.
Doesn't seem all that complicated to me.
Why? Are all gay men sexual predators?
Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way.
That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men.
Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you?
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while.
Why has no one figured out that if there was a scout leader who really wanted to molest kids, he'd just, you know, lie? "Oh yeah, totally straight. Long term girlfriend. No 12 year old diddling at all, no desire to whatsoever!". It's not a safety net. It's saying "Gay values are not our values" when there really are no "gay values" because homosexuals aren't exactly a single unified and uniform group. Wow, how useful, and it appreciate your support.
How about let's be honest here: "I think 2 guys having sex is icky, and icky things mean I don't want to think about it because I'm very self centered and can't empathize or have any form of social interactions that aren't 100% agreeable with my self identity. I'm fragile you see."
Why would gay people even want to be in scouts? Being out in the woods alone with just other guys...oh, I get it But seriously, I think they should be allowed to be boy scouts if they want, I would just feel bad for them because boys that age like to tease a lot and they might be bullied out of going
On June 08 2012 07:51 austinmcc wrote: Was anyone here a Boy Scout in a troop that was openly anti-gay?
Maybe I had an odd troop, because we weren't church-sponsored, but we had at least one gay kid in our troop that we knew of. Just because the BSA formalized some anti-gay policy doesn't mean the uniforms wouldn't fit on gay kids or that they're coming around with the gaydar and kicking out anyone who pings. If your troop wasn't homophobic, my experience with mine, and what I'm guessing was other scouts' experience as well, was that they weren't going to kick you out over "policy."
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/06/12086046-boy-scouts-review-controversial-anti-gay-policy?lite The new policy would throw out the national ban and allow local chartering organizations to decide whether or not they would accept gay youth and leaders, said Zach Wahls, an Eagle Scout who has advocated for the change, citing unidentified people he spoke to who attended the group's national annual meeting last week where the proposal was made.
This change isn't nearly as big a change as anyone is making it out to be. The national organization is NEVER attending local scout meetings, telling you who can and can't be in your troop. If anyone has been anti-gay, it's been at the troop and council level, more local, and the change just keeps that in place.
All this does is maybe open up troops that were fine with gay scouts but for some reason not allowing it because that was "policy." Which I'm guessing is a very, very low number.
I was also in a non-church affiliated troop. It was great, had a good time. However, while our troop never had an issues with gay kids that I know of, our council did.
One of my friends was gay, and was about to make Eagle. He was the perfect boy scout too. Spoke 4+ languages, organized an amazing Eagle project with over 100 volunteers, served as Senior Patrol Leader, the list just goes on. Everyone knew he was gay, but he hadn't come out and said it, so technically he was "in the closet" and the organization turned a blind eye. But, he decided to make a point, and came out very openly and made sure the BSA knew all about it.
They kicked his ass out, didn't even let him get his Eagle. I'm still pretty pissed about it, put a big black mark on an otherwise awesome time in scouting.
On June 08 2012 08:08 Savio wrote: I would feel as awkward sending my sons to go sleep in a tent with gay grown men as I would sending my daughter of the same age to sleep in a tent with heterosexual grown men.
Seems like the BSA might have a reason to strike the resolution down.
Doesn't seem all that complicated to me.
Ehhhh just because you let gays join up doesn't mean that there's going to suddenly be close bodily contact going on.
Hence, why I would feel the same sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would feel sending my son with homosexual men. Either way, there shouldn't be contact, but the worry would be there.
Which is why I would feel the same either way.
Its not a very complicated concept. It basically means having the same concern for homosexuality as you do for heterosexuality.
This sounds paranoid, rather than homophobic. Would you similarly be worried about co-ed roommates or homosexual roommates? What if the scout leader was married?
On June 08 2012 08:08 Savio wrote: I would feel as awkward sending my sons to go sleep in a tent with gay grown men as I would sending my daughter of the same age to sleep in a tent with heterosexual grown men.
Seems like the BSA might have a reason to strike the resolution down.
Doesn't seem all that complicated to me.
Why? Are all gay men sexual predators?
Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way.
That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men.
Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you?
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while.
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
On June 08 2012 05:42 RodrigoX wrote: The Boy Scouts of America banning gay people is 100 percent completely reasonable. It is a social club. A club with their own rules and policies. It is also completely legal because in their bi-laws they state no homosexuals should participate. I mean nobody allows open and practicing Muslims in Catholics parishes. White people in Black student Scholarship funds.
The boy scouts is an idea, and unfortunately homosexuals do not conform to that idea. If they wanted to be part of the Boy scouts they should you know, stop being gay.
This may seem to be a bigoted position, but it is a Christian organization. Homosexuality presents a lifestyle that is not Christian. I mean, why don't gay people start a Boy Scouts esq organization that accepts all kinds of ideals. It is a group for like minded people. Gay people are not like minded in the sense of the Boy Scouts of America.
Edit: It is wrong for the Transportation system to discriminant because it is not a private industry. It is a completely public industry. I mean the only reason a restaurant can not decline serving black people is because of the idea of a centrally planned economy. If it was a completely capitalist economy, discrimination if anything is enforced. I mean sure, if you wanted to make clubs and organizations publically owned then sure, lets have the government control everything. But if you still want an organization to be privately owned, and let them to do them, then leave them be to their own ideals.
Sure, but then they shouldn't receive tax money.
I don't know if you realize this from all the way up on your holy arches, but homosexuality has been rampant in Christianity since the time of Christ. Perhaps instead of having an argument that you even claims "seems bigoted", because it is bigoted, you should rethink your contradictory old age idiotic brainwashed inequitable logic based on bullshit and join the real world... Where the world was created billions of years ago, the world is not flat and the sun does not (incase you didn't catch that) revolve around earth
On June 08 2012 08:08 Savio wrote: I would feel as awkward sending my sons to go sleep in a tent with gay grown men as I would sending my daughter of the same age to sleep in a tent with heterosexual grown men.
Seems like the BSA might have a reason to strike the resolution down.
Doesn't seem all that complicated to me.
Why? Are all gay men sexual predators?
Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way.
That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men.
Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you?
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while.
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
That's the issue with formulating an opinion based on personal generalizations from being in a field where you are only surrounded with specific stereotypes... Basically she is generalizing all gay men as men that would have sex with children just based on sexuality... So in fact, associated all gays with being molesters. Perhaps your not suited for the correct job, seeing as I feel your advice can change lives, and obviously you have a very easily compelled generic personality which stereotypes.
If this is an internal decision they are choosing to make then I support it. If they are being strongly pressured, which they no doubt are, and are caving in to that pressure, then I don't support it. And no they shouldn't receive federal funding.
On June 08 2012 08:08 Savio wrote: I would feel as awkward sending my sons to go sleep in a tent with gay grown men as I would sending my daughter of the same age to sleep in a tent with heterosexual grown men.
Seems like the BSA might have a reason to strike the resolution down.
Doesn't seem all that complicated to me.
Why? Are all gay men sexual predators?
Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way.
That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men.
Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you?
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while.
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
On June 08 2012 08:08 Savio wrote: I would feel as awkward sending my sons to go sleep in a tent with gay grown men as I would sending my daughter of the same age to sleep in a tent with heterosexual grown men.
Seems like the BSA might have a reason to strike the resolution down.
Doesn't seem all that complicated to me.
Why? Are all gay men sexual predators?
Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way.
That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men.
Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you?
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while.
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
On June 08 2012 08:08 Savio wrote: I would feel as awkward sending my sons to go sleep in a tent with gay grown men as I would sending my daughter of the same age to sleep in a tent with heterosexual grown men.
Seems like the BSA might have a reason to strike the resolution down.
Doesn't seem all that complicated to me.
Why? Are all gay men sexual predators?
Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way.
That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men.
Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you?
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while.
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
On June 08 2012 08:08 Savio wrote: I would feel as awkward sending my sons to go sleep in a tent with gay grown men as I would sending my daughter of the same age to sleep in a tent with heterosexual grown men.
Seems like the BSA might have a reason to strike the resolution down.
Doesn't seem all that complicated to me.
Why? Are all gay men sexual predators?
Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way.
That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men.
Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you?
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while.
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
Why wouldn't federal funding (meaning the miniscule percentage of the childs parents who's kid is rejected) matter? Drug testing, you bumbling idiot, isn't discrimination at all... If they only drug tested blacks/hispanics then yes that would be discrimination but equal testing is equality... Drug testing... Why are the worst arguments in the world always formulated on the side who approves of bigotry.
When you use federal funding, you are no longer privately operated... As private as you want to be, it's now a public institution (or partially) and such all of the public (while abiding by the law) should be able to participate...
Oh and let me get this straight, you're saying that tax payers dollars should support bigotry because in the past others have supported bigotry and idiots will always be bigots so let them be? Just curious on your stance.
On June 08 2012 08:21 NoDDiE wrote: im kinda happy i live in a country in which such situation would just make huge LOL. on the side note what would happen if suddenly everyone would start being homo ?XD world would die?
World would at least be a good place for a bit.
Lol I do hope you're joking. As if sexual preferences define good and evil. xD
On June 08 2012 08:08 Savio wrote: I would feel as awkward sending my sons to go sleep in a tent with gay grown men as I would sending my daughter of the same age to sleep in a tent with heterosexual grown men.
Seems like the BSA might have a reason to strike the resolution down.
Doesn't seem all that complicated to me.
Why? Are all gay men sexual predators?
Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way.
That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men.
Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you?
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while.
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
Why wouldn't federal funding (meaning the miniscule percentage of the childs parents who's kid is rejected) matter? Drug testing, you bumbling idiot, isn't discrimination at all... Why are the worst arguments in the world always formulated on the side who approves of bigotry.
When you use federal funding, you are no longer privately operated... As private as you want to be, it's now a public institution (or partially) and such all of the public (while abiding by the law) should be able to participate...
Oh and let me get this straight, you're saying that tax payers dollars should support bigotry because in the past others have supported bigotry and idiots will always be bigots so let them be? Just curious on your stance.
'
Sorry you lost me at the insults. And yes, drug tests are discriminatory.Often people with medical issues can't get jobs because of their legal meds.
Read my edit if you want further explanations. Vote where your money goes, not what the practices of the organization it goes to are.
On June 08 2012 08:08 Savio wrote: I would feel as awkward sending my sons to go sleep in a tent with gay grown men as I would sending my daughter of the same age to sleep in a tent with heterosexual grown men.
Seems like the BSA might have a reason to strike the resolution down.
Doesn't seem all that complicated to me.
Why? Are all gay men sexual predators?
Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way.
That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men.
Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you?
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while.
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
On June 08 2012 08:08 Savio wrote: I would feel as awkward sending my sons to go sleep in a tent with gay grown men as I would sending my daughter of the same age to sleep in a tent with heterosexual grown men.
Seems like the BSA might have a reason to strike the resolution down.
Doesn't seem all that complicated to me.
Why? Are all gay men sexual predators?
Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way.
That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men.
Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you?
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while.
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions.
On June 08 2012 08:08 Savio wrote: I would feel as awkward sending my sons to go sleep in a tent with gay grown men as I would sending my daughter of the same age to sleep in a tent with heterosexual grown men.
Seems like the BSA might have a reason to strike the resolution down.
Doesn't seem all that complicated to me.
Why? Are all gay men sexual predators?
Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way.
That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men.
Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you?
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while.
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights.
Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race...
If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone.
Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way.
That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men.
Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you?
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while.
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions.
stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots.
To elaborate, simply put, if 100 people (sample size since apparently something like 7% of americans have been boy scouts) pay 100 dollars for something together, 1% can't simply just waltz in and say "ok this half, yes you... you still give us the money, but you can't join us when we use it... Oh and you too, I don't enjoy your look, you sit back down"
That's not how it works, and it shouldn't be permitted.
Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way.
That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men.
Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you?
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while.
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
Why wouldn't federal funding (meaning the miniscule percentage of the childs parents who's kid is rejected) matter? Drug testing, you bumbling idiot, isn't discrimination at all... Why are the worst arguments in the world always formulated on the side who approves of bigotry.
When you use federal funding, you are no longer privately operated... As private as you want to be, it's now a public institution (or partially) and such all of the public (while abiding by the law) should be able to participate...
Oh and let me get this straight, you're saying that tax payers dollars should support bigotry because in the past others have supported bigotry and idiots will always be bigots so let them be? Just curious on your stance.
'
Sorry you lost me at the insults. And yes, drug tests are discriminatory.Often people with medical issues can't get jobs because of their legal meds.
Read my edit if you want further explanations. Vote where your money goes, not what the practices of the organization it goes to are.
Have a nice day.
Not sure if serious. You are given a drug test for jobs because, guess what, illegal drugs are illegal and criminals should not be working trusted positions. Those who have medical issues can't get jobs because, guess what, those legal meds make them unable to properly do their job. This literally has nothing to do with being gay, which has no affect whatsoever on your performance at your job as a scout leader. Wow.
On June 08 2012 08:38 NibbloniaN wrote: Why would gay people even want to be in scouts? Being out in the woods alone with just other guys...oh, I get it But seriously, I think they should be allowed to be boy scouts if they want, I would just feel bad for them because boys that age like to tease a lot and they might be bullied out of going
Boys tease and bully? Wow I guess fat kids, those with acne, or any other "abnormal" condition should not apply either.
On June 08 2012 08:21 NoDDiE wrote: im kinda happy i live in a country in which such situation would just make huge LOL. on the side note what would happen if suddenly everyone would start being homo ?XD world would die?
World would at least be a good place for a bit.
Lol I do hope you're joking. As if sexual preferences define good and evil. xD
i meant good as in awesome not as in good and evil.
Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way.
That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men.
Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you?
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while.
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights.
Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race...
If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone.
Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way.
That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men.
Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you?
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while.
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions.
stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots.
That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards.
Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way.
That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men.
Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you?
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while.
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights.
Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race...
If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone.
On June 08 2012 10:19 Uncultured wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:
On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:
On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote:
On June 08 2012 08:25 oldgregg wrote: [quote]
Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you?
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while.
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions.
stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots.
That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards.
All of your examples make absolute no sense, construction companies won't hire fat people because they simply can't work the job appropriately (if you are speaking about lifting/building) but to improve upon that notion, I've seen hundreds if not thousands of fat construction workers... Define fat a little better, a 250 lbs white collar 5'9 man is fat in my books.
So you're argument is, gay's are not qualified to camp and have fun... Sorry, please tell me where they lack the qualifications for that. I totally agree unqualified workers shouldn't be hired. So tell everyone why gay people are unfit to take on the hardships of boy scouts.
adding, is it because being gay is against the holy scripture? Tell that to the priests, maybe we should ban priests from boy scouts to because they've been in situations where they rape alter boys. Also, ban any man with big strong hands, he may just simply strangle a kid whos helpless. Let's ban anyone who is a liability, ban everyone!
Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way.
That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men.
Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you?
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while.
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights.
Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race...
If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone.
On June 08 2012 10:19 Uncultured wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:
On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:
On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote:
On June 08 2012 08:25 oldgregg wrote: [quote]
Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you?
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while.
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions.
stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots.
That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards.
Unqualified and overweight in certain areas is not discrimination, if ur not qualified you cannot do the job properly if ur overweight in construction industry it might hurt your health or you may not be able to do the job. Discriminating because someone is gay which has no bearing on ability or qualifications is discrimation and if government pays that company and they discriminate then in essence they support it.
All of your examples make absolute no sense, construction companies won't hire fat people because they simply can't work the job appropriately (if you are speaking about lifting/building) but to improve upon that notion, I've seen hundreds if not thousands of fat construction workers... Define fat a little better, a 250 lbs white collar 5'9 man is fat in my books.
So you're argument is, gay's are not qualified to camp and have fun... Sorry, please tell me where they lack the qualifications for that. I totally agree unqualified workers shouldn't be hired. So tell everyone why gay people are unfit to take on the hardships of boy scouts.
adding, is it because being gay is against the holy scripture? Tell that to the priests, maybe we should ban priests from boy scouts to because they've been in situations where they rape alter boys. Also, ban any man with big strong hands, he may just simply strangle a kid whos helpless. Let's ban anyone who is a liability, ban everyone!
I didn't say gays aren't qualified for anything. Quit putting words in my mouth. I said the company decides what to discriminate against. And unless you can find me a Federal law that states employers or clubs must hire/invite everyone, than your entire argument is based on idealistic hopes and dreams that just don't fit into the real world.
And lol at the non-sequitur ended. Way to go way off the deep end buddy.
On June 08 2012 10:30 Uncultured wrote: I didn't say gays aren't qualified for anything. Quit putting words in my mouth. I said the company decides what to discriminate against. And unless you can find me a Federal law that states employers or clubs must hire/invite everyone, than your entire argument is based on idealistic hopes and dreams that just don't fit into the real world.
They don't have to hire/invite everyone but their hiring system shouldn't discrimate against people who can do the job/activity whatever but who are gay. I do not think its an idealistic hope to think that the world shouldn't be homophobic.
Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way.
That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men.
Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you?
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while.
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights.
Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race...
If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone.
On June 08 2012 10:19 Uncultured wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:
On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:
On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote:
On June 08 2012 08:25 oldgregg wrote: [quote]
Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you?
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while.
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions.
stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots.
That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards.
Those discriminations seem like they have an actual reason for them. What reason, other than bigotry, do the scouts have for not allowing gay people in?
Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you?
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while.
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights.
Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race...
If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone.
On June 08 2012 10:19 Uncultured wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:
On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:
On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote: [quote]
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while.
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions.
stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots.
That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards.
Unqualified and overweight in certain areas is not discrimination, if ur not qualified you cannot do the job properly if ur overweight in construction industry it might hurt your health or you may not be able to do the job. Discriminating because someone is gay which has no bearing on ability or qualifications is discrimation and if government pays that company and they discriminate then in essence they support it.
Discrimination's definition isn't as narrow as you're painting it to be. Take the earlier medicinal drugs argument. Or how 'bout a new one. Many companies discriminate employers based on the criminal record. Something that has no bearing on qualifications or ability. Yet it's still done. Because an employer/company/organization is allowed to make their own rules, even while federally funded.
Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you?
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while.
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights.
Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race...
If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone.
On June 08 2012 10:19 Uncultured wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:
On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:
On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote: [quote]
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while.
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions.
stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots.
That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards.
Those discriminations seem like they have an actual reason for them. What reason, other than bigotry, do the scouts have for not allowing gay people in?
The reasoning doesn't matter at all. The company decides the qualifications for something. The closest you can get is Federal stipulations that will revoke funding if certain qualifications aren't met. This can possibly force a company into changing its rules. But you can't force a company to change its practices simply because it is already funded.
Once again, vote where your money goes, not what the companies practices' that it goes to are.
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while.
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights.
Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race...
If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone.
On June 08 2012 10:19 Uncultured wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:
On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote: [quote]
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions.
stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots.
That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards.
Those discriminations seem like they have an actual reason for them. What reason, other than bigotry, do the scouts have for not allowing gay people in?
The reasoning doesn't matter at all. The company decides the qualifications for something. The closest you can get is Federal stipulations that will revoke funding if certain qualifications aren't met. This can possibly force a company into changing its rules. But you can't force a company to change its practices simply because it is already funded.
Once again, vote where your money goes, not what the companies practices that it goes to are.
well yes the reasoning does matter. can you imagine what would happen if federally owned construction companies starting not hiring gay people? there would be an uproar and the company would rightly have to back down. if you think that the scouts and federally owned companies are so similar then how can you not see that that is what is happening right now to the scouts? people are outraged and the scouts should rightly back down.
and as to your last sentence, that is just your opinion. I think we should have some say over what companies can and can't do.
anyone else think uncultured is just speaking in circles making absolutely no relevant points? Maybe we all should just generally ignore him, anyone who thinks gays are unqualified to go camping/sing songs/have fun is pretty idiotic if you ask me, you won't get far in an argument with him.
No one has once said that they must hire everyone, but they must accept applicants who are qualified without gender/sexual/race discriminatory practices... Do you check your calender? most of these civil laws were passed 30 years ago, the one on gays was in the 90's...
The only reason anyone here is making the qualified argument, is because you chose the "would a construction company hire a fat man, no he's unqualified" which makes your argument that companies shouldnt (or groups) hire unqualified people, so gays then must be unqualified.
Let's all be bigots for a second, take on the role of the "uncultured" individual and be a bigot towards him and continue discussing how this could be possible.
On June 08 2012 10:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote: anyone else think uncultured is just speaking in circles making absolutely no relevant points? Maybe we all should just generally ignore him, anyone who thinks gays are unqualified to go camping/sing songs/have fun is pretty idiotic if you ask me, you won't get far in an argument with him.
No one has once said that they must hire everyone, but they must accept applicants who are qualified without gender/sexual/race discriminatory practices... Do you check your calender? most of these civil laws were passed 30 years ago, the one on gays was in the 90's...
The only reason anyone here is making the qualified argument, is because you chose the "would a construction company hire a fat man, no he's unqualified" which makes your argument that companies shouldnt (or groups) hire unqualified people, so gays then must be unqualified.
Let's all be bigots for a second, take on the role of the "uncultured" individual and be a bigot towards him and continue discussing how this could be possible.
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights.
Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race...
If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone.
On June 08 2012 10:19 Uncultured wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote: [quote] It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions.
stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots.
That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards.
Those discriminations seem like they have an actual reason for them. What reason, other than bigotry, do the scouts have for not allowing gay people in?
The reasoning doesn't matter at all. The company decides the qualifications for something. The closest you can get is Federal stipulations that will revoke funding if certain qualifications aren't met. This can possibly force a company into changing its rules. But you can't force a company to change its practices simply because it is already funded.
Once again, vote where your money goes, not what the companies practices that it goes to are.
well yes the reasoning does matter. can you imagine what would happen if federally owned construction companies starting not hiring gay people? there would be an uproar and the company would rightly have to back down. if you think that the scouts and federally owned companies are so similar then how can you not see that that is what is happening right now to the scouts? people are outraged and the scouts should rightly back down.
and as to your last sentence, that is just your opinion. I think we should have some say over what companies can and can't do.
It doesn't matter in the eyes of the law. Whether it does in your, or my opinion. That's my point here.
That's the thing. It's not my opinion, it's how it currently works. I didn't say it's how it should work. You have a say by voting where your money goes. If someone is threatening to pull money if you don't allow gays, then it is up to you, the company, whether or not they change their rules, or give up funding.
You don't get to make the rules simply because you pay a bit of money, that's backwards from how it should(and currently does) work. Everyone in the world would have so many conflicting opinions that anything federally funded would have no regulations on hiring whatsoever, or too many. Or they would constantly be in flux because of differing opinions.
On June 08 2012 10:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote: anyone else think uncultured is just speaking in circles making absolutely no relevant points? Maybe we all should just generally ignore him, anyone who thinks gays are unqualified to go camping/sing songs/have fun is pretty idiotic if you ask me, you won't get far in an argument with him.
No one has once said that they must hire everyone, but they must accept applicants who are qualified without gender/sexual/race discriminatory practices... Do you check your calender? most of these civil laws were passed 30 years ago, the one on gays was in the 90's...
The only reason anyone here is making the qualified argument, is because you chose the "would a construction company hire a fat man, no he's unqualified" which makes your argument that companies shouldnt (or groups) hire unqualified people, so gays then must be unqualified.
Let's all be bigots for a second, take on the role of the "uncultured" individual and be a bigot towards him and continue discussing how this could be possible.
Ok agreed I'm done feeding trolls for one day
Clearly you don't know what trolling is. How am I speaking in circles? I'm simply describing how the current system works, and why it works that way. Your only arguments against them so far is "well that's not right". Well, the law doesn't give a shit about what's right, sorry.
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while.
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights.
Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race...
If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone.
On June 08 2012 10:19 Uncultured wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:
On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote: [quote]
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions.
stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots.
That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards.
Unqualified and overweight in certain areas is not discrimination, if ur not qualified you cannot do the job properly if ur overweight in construction industry it might hurt your health or you may not be able to do the job. Discriminating because someone is gay which has no bearing on ability or qualifications is discrimation and if government pays that company and they discriminate then in essence they support it.
Discrimination's definition isn't as narrow as you're painting it to be. Take the earlier medicinal drugs argument. Or how 'bout a new one. Many companies discriminate employers based on the criminal record. Something that has no bearing on qualifications or ability. Yet it's still done. Because an employer/company/organization is allowed to make their own rules, even while federally funded.
Why are you still even arguing this, just admit you're wrong and stop fishing. Wow. You are trying to win an argument on semantics about what discrimination is when no one cares. There is a reason that people on medicinal drugs are not allowed to do a job, because they are not qualified to do a job---I know people on things such as strong painkillers, they shouldn't be trusted to do very much. There is a reason that construction workers cannot be overweight, because they will not be qualified for the job. My uncle and cousin work in the construction field, this is true. Many companies will not allow a criminal in their field because it is a position of trust and you have shown yourself to be untrustworthy in the eyes of the law---I am a pre-med student that volunteers at hospitals, I know the reason they won't hire certain criminals.
However, companies are NOT allowed to discriminate on things irrelevant to the job such as race, gender (unless being a female makes them unqualified for it, for example a job that requires a lot of heavy lifting), etc. Sexual orientation is the same, discrimination based solely on an irrelevant factor. That's called equal opportunity employing, if you have filled out a job application you know what that is. Companies that are not equal opportunity employers will have federal funds withheld, can be sued, legal action brought against them, etc. This is the real world, not your ridiculous examples.
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights.
Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race...
If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone.
On June 08 2012 10:19 Uncultured wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote: [quote] It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions.
stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots.
That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards.
Unqualified and overweight in certain areas is not discrimination, if ur not qualified you cannot do the job properly if ur overweight in construction industry it might hurt your health or you may not be able to do the job. Discriminating because someone is gay which has no bearing on ability or qualifications is discrimation and if government pays that company and they discriminate then in essence they support it.
Discrimination's definition isn't as narrow as you're painting it to be. Take the earlier medicinal drugs argument. Or how 'bout a new one. Many companies discriminate employers based on the criminal record. Something that has no bearing on qualifications or ability. Yet it's still done. Because an employer/company/organization is allowed to make their own rules, even while federally funded.
Why are you still even arguing this, just admit you're wrong and stop fishing. Wow. You are trying to win an argument on semantics about what discrimination is when no one cares. There is a reason that people on medicinal drugs are not allowed to do a job, because they are not qualified to do a job---I know people on things such as strong painkillers, they shouldn't be trusted to do very much. There is a reason that construction workers cannot be overweight, because they will not be qualified for the job. My uncle and cousin work in the construction field, this is true. Many companies will not allow a criminal in their field because it is a position of trust and you have shown yourself to be untrustworthy in the eyes of the law---I am a pre-med student that volunteers at hospitals, I know the reason they won't hire certain criminals.
However, companies are NOT allowed to discriminate on things irrelevant to the job such as race, gender (unless being a female makes them unqualified for it, for example a job that requires a lot of heavy lifting), etc. That's called equal opportunity employing, if you have filled out a job application you know what that is.
Your argument is just ridiculous. Stop.
You can be perfectly qualified for certain work while on certain drugs. But you seem to be missing the point entirely. A company is allowed to, by law, discriminate based on certain things. Ther are stipulations against this when money is being paid. But that is not an example of what is happening for the scouts. There's no money being lost because of discrimination.
There's been no laws passed forcing the scouts to accepts gays. Otherwise they already would have and this argument would have never happened. If you don't like your money funding a company that doesn't hold your views, you can vote to have federal funding removed.
On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote: [quote] It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights.
Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race...
If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone.
On June 08 2012 10:19 Uncultured wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote: [quote]
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions.
stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots.
That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards.
Unqualified and overweight in certain areas is not discrimination, if ur not qualified you cannot do the job properly if ur overweight in construction industry it might hurt your health or you may not be able to do the job. Discriminating because someone is gay which has no bearing on ability or qualifications is discrimation and if government pays that company and they discriminate then in essence they support it.
Discrimination's definition isn't as narrow as you're painting it to be. Take the earlier medicinal drugs argument. Or how 'bout a new one. Many companies discriminate employers based on the criminal record. Something that has no bearing on qualifications or ability. Yet it's still done. Because an employer/company/organization is allowed to make their own rules, even while federally funded.
Why are you still even arguing this, just admit you're wrong and stop fishing. Wow. You are trying to win an argument on semantics about what discrimination is when no one cares. There is a reason that people on medicinal drugs are not allowed to do a job, because they are not qualified to do a job---I know people on things such as strong painkillers, they shouldn't be trusted to do very much. There is a reason that construction workers cannot be overweight, because they will not be qualified for the job. My uncle and cousin work in the construction field, this is true. Many companies will not allow a criminal in their field because it is a position of trust and you have shown yourself to be untrustworthy in the eyes of the law---I am a pre-med student that volunteers at hospitals, I know the reason they won't hire certain criminals.
However, companies are NOT allowed to discriminate on things irrelevant to the job such as race, gender (unless being a female makes them unqualified for it, for example a job that requires a lot of heavy lifting), etc. That's called equal opportunity employing, if you have filled out a job application you know what that is.
Your argument is just ridiculous. Stop.
Had little of value to say (paraphrased)
Yeah I agree, it is ridiculous.
The comment (further above) on atheists being able to join if this happens would be interesting, particularly on the basis of how christians will act... Will the be self centered and discriminate (well read above comments and you may find your answer, but I dislike generalizing based on a few misplaced ideals) or will they be accepting. If anything, it should be an opportunity for christians to try and do what they do best, spread faith. Nothing is saying they can't practice their faith.
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.
On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote: [quote] It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here.
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights.
Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race...
If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone.
On June 08 2012 10:19 Uncultured wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote: [quote]
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions.
stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots.
That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards.
Unqualified and overweight in certain areas is not discrimination, if ur not qualified you cannot do the job properly if ur overweight in construction industry it might hurt your health or you may not be able to do the job. Discriminating because someone is gay which has no bearing on ability or qualifications is discrimation and if government pays that company and they discriminate then in essence they support it.
Discrimination's definition isn't as narrow as you're painting it to be. Take the earlier medicinal drugs argument. Or how 'bout a new one. Many companies discriminate employers based on the criminal record. Something that has no bearing on qualifications or ability. Yet it's still done. Because an employer/company/organization is allowed to make their own rules, even while federally funded.
Why are you still even arguing this, just admit you're wrong and stop fishing. Wow. You are trying to win an argument on semantics about what discrimination is when no one cares. There is a reason that people on medicinal drugs are not allowed to do a job, because they are not qualified to do a job---I know people on things such as strong painkillers, they shouldn't be trusted to do very much. There is a reason that construction workers cannot be overweight, because they will not be qualified for the job. My uncle and cousin work in the construction field, this is true. Many companies will not allow a criminal in their field because it is a position of trust and you have shown yourself to be untrustworthy in the eyes of the law---I am a pre-med student that volunteers at hospitals, I know the reason they won't hire certain criminals.
However, companies are NOT allowed to discriminate on things irrelevant to the job such as race, gender (unless being a female makes them unqualified for it, for example a job that requires a lot of heavy lifting), etc. That's called equal opportunity employing, if you have filled out a job application you know what that is.
Your argument is just ridiculous. Stop.
You can be perfectly qualified for certain work while on certain drugs. I notice no one has touched my criminal record example yet. Because it's a clear example of the exact discrimination we're talking about. I don't see how I'm wrong when all I'm doing is describing how the current system works...
There's been no laws passed forcing the scouts to accepts gays. Otherwise they already would have and this argument would have never happened. If you don't like your money funding a company that doesn't hold your views, you can vote to have federal funding removed.
Did you even read what I said? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Yes, you can be perfectly qualified for certain work on certain drugs, and in that case you can not be discriminated against by your employer without the potential to sue. Give me a single example of a place that will not hire you for an irrelevant medical drug you're on. I'm in the medical field, volunteer at a hospital, and have not seen it or heard about it a single time in my life.
I did touch your criminal record example, you are not allowed to have certain jobs because you have broken the law and shown yourself to not be responsible. Often times it doesn't even matter if it's a victimless crime, and that can be expunged from your record in many states anyway. If you have committed a felony or a crime with a victim, then you have shown that you should not be in a professional field where you are a trusted person in a position of power. A person with a past assault and battery charge cannot be trusted as an EMT. A person with past drug abuse problems should not be trusted as a doctor. These are legitimate reasons to "discriminate".
Also you apparently have no idea how the legislature process works if you think you can umm...vote to have federal funding removed from certain organizations?
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights.
Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race...
If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone.
On June 08 2012 10:19 Uncultured wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote: [quote]
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions.
stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots.
That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards.
Unqualified and overweight in certain areas is not discrimination, if ur not qualified you cannot do the job properly if ur overweight in construction industry it might hurt your health or you may not be able to do the job. Discriminating because someone is gay which has no bearing on ability or qualifications is discrimation and if government pays that company and they discriminate then in essence they support it.
Discrimination's definition isn't as narrow as you're painting it to be. Take the earlier medicinal drugs argument. Or how 'bout a new one. Many companies discriminate employers based on the criminal record. Something that has no bearing on qualifications or ability. Yet it's still done. Because an employer/company/organization is allowed to make their own rules, even while federally funded.
Why are you still even arguing this, just admit you're wrong and stop fishing. Wow. You are trying to win an argument on semantics about what discrimination is when no one cares. There is a reason that people on medicinal drugs are not allowed to do a job, because they are not qualified to do a job---I know people on things such as strong painkillers, they shouldn't be trusted to do very much. There is a reason that construction workers cannot be overweight, because they will not be qualified for the job. My uncle and cousin work in the construction field, this is true. Many companies will not allow a criminal in their field because it is a position of trust and you have shown yourself to be untrustworthy in the eyes of the law---I am a pre-med student that volunteers at hospitals, I know the reason they won't hire certain criminals.
However, companies are NOT allowed to discriminate on things irrelevant to the job such as race, gender (unless being a female makes them unqualified for it, for example a job that requires a lot of heavy lifting), etc. That's called equal opportunity employing, if you have filled out a job application you know what that is.
Your argument is just ridiculous. Stop.
You can be perfectly qualified for certain work while on certain drugs. I notice no one has touched my criminal record example yet. Because it's a clear example of the exact discrimination we're talking about. I don't see how I'm wrong when all I'm doing is describing how the current system works...
There's been no laws passed forcing the scouts to accepts gays. Otherwise they already would have and this argument would have never happened. If you don't like your money funding a company that doesn't hold your views, you can vote to have federal funding removed.
Did you even read what I said? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Yes, you can be perfectly qualified for certain work on certain drugs, and in that case you can not be discriminated against by your employer without the potential to sue. Give me a single example of a place that will not hire you for an irrelevant medical drug you're on. I'm in the medical field, volunteer at a hospital, and have not seen it or heard about it a single time in my life.
I did touch your criminal record example, you are not allowed to have certain jobs because you have broken the law and shown yourself to not be responsible. Often times it doesn't even matter if it's a victimless crime, and that can be expunged from your record in many states anyway. If you have committed a felony or a crime with a victim, then you have shown that you should not be in a professional field where you are a trusted person in a position of power. A person with a past assault and battery charge cannot be trusted as an EMT. A person with past drug abuse problems should not be trusted as a doctor. These are legitimate reasons to "discriminate".
Also you apparently have no idea how the legislature process works if you think you can umm...vote to have federal funding removed from certain organizations?
You vote in representatives who decide where the federal money goes. Same thing.
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly?
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights.
Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race...
If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone.
On June 08 2012 10:19 Uncultured wrote:
On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote: [quote]
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions.
stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots.
That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards.
Unqualified and overweight in certain areas is not discrimination, if ur not qualified you cannot do the job properly if ur overweight in construction industry it might hurt your health or you may not be able to do the job. Discriminating because someone is gay which has no bearing on ability or qualifications is discrimation and if government pays that company and they discriminate then in essence they support it.
Discrimination's definition isn't as narrow as you're painting it to be. Take the earlier medicinal drugs argument. Or how 'bout a new one. Many companies discriminate employers based on the criminal record. Something that has no bearing on qualifications or ability. Yet it's still done. Because an employer/company/organization is allowed to make their own rules, even while federally funded.
Why are you still even arguing this, just admit you're wrong and stop fishing. Wow. You are trying to win an argument on semantics about what discrimination is when no one cares. There is a reason that people on medicinal drugs are not allowed to do a job, because they are not qualified to do a job---I know people on things such as strong painkillers, they shouldn't be trusted to do very much. There is a reason that construction workers cannot be overweight, because they will not be qualified for the job. My uncle and cousin work in the construction field, this is true. Many companies will not allow a criminal in their field because it is a position of trust and you have shown yourself to be untrustworthy in the eyes of the law---I am a pre-med student that volunteers at hospitals, I know the reason they won't hire certain criminals.
However, companies are NOT allowed to discriminate on things irrelevant to the job such as race, gender (unless being a female makes them unqualified for it, for example a job that requires a lot of heavy lifting), etc. That's called equal opportunity employing, if you have filled out a job application you know what that is.
Your argument is just ridiculous. Stop.
You can be perfectly qualified for certain work while on certain drugs. I notice no one has touched my criminal record example yet. Because it's a clear example of the exact discrimination we're talking about. I don't see how I'm wrong when all I'm doing is describing how the current system works...
There's been no laws passed forcing the scouts to accepts gays. Otherwise they already would have and this argument would have never happened. If you don't like your money funding a company that doesn't hold your views, you can vote to have federal funding removed.
Did you even read what I said? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Yes, you can be perfectly qualified for certain work on certain drugs, and in that case you can not be discriminated against by your employer without the potential to sue. Give me a single example of a place that will not hire you for an irrelevant medical drug you're on. I'm in the medical field, volunteer at a hospital, and have not seen it or heard about it a single time in my life.
I did touch your criminal record example, you are not allowed to have certain jobs because you have broken the law and shown yourself to not be responsible. Often times it doesn't even matter if it's a victimless crime, and that can be expunged from your record in many states anyway. If you have committed a felony or a crime with a victim, then you have shown that you should not be in a professional field where you are a trusted person in a position of power. A person with a past assault and battery charge cannot be trusted as an EMT. A person with past drug abuse problems should not be trusted as a doctor. These are legitimate reasons to "discriminate".
Also you apparently have no idea how the legislature process works if you think you can umm...vote to have federal funding removed from certain organizations?
You vote in representatives who decide where the federal money goes. Same thing.
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization
It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights.
Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race...
If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone.
On June 08 2012 10:19 Uncultured wrote: [quote]
Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions.
stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots.
That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards.
Unqualified and overweight in certain areas is not discrimination, if ur not qualified you cannot do the job properly if ur overweight in construction industry it might hurt your health or you may not be able to do the job. Discriminating because someone is gay which has no bearing on ability or qualifications is discrimation and if government pays that company and they discriminate then in essence they support it.
Discrimination's definition isn't as narrow as you're painting it to be. Take the earlier medicinal drugs argument. Or how 'bout a new one. Many companies discriminate employers based on the criminal record. Something that has no bearing on qualifications or ability. Yet it's still done. Because an employer/company/organization is allowed to make their own rules, even while federally funded.
Why are you still even arguing this, just admit you're wrong and stop fishing. Wow. You are trying to win an argument on semantics about what discrimination is when no one cares. There is a reason that people on medicinal drugs are not allowed to do a job, because they are not qualified to do a job---I know people on things such as strong painkillers, they shouldn't be trusted to do very much. There is a reason that construction workers cannot be overweight, because they will not be qualified for the job. My uncle and cousin work in the construction field, this is true. Many companies will not allow a criminal in their field because it is a position of trust and you have shown yourself to be untrustworthy in the eyes of the law---I am a pre-med student that volunteers at hospitals, I know the reason they won't hire certain criminals.
However, companies are NOT allowed to discriminate on things irrelevant to the job such as race, gender (unless being a female makes them unqualified for it, for example a job that requires a lot of heavy lifting), etc. That's called equal opportunity employing, if you have filled out a job application you know what that is.
Your argument is just ridiculous. Stop.
You can be perfectly qualified for certain work while on certain drugs. I notice no one has touched my criminal record example yet. Because it's a clear example of the exact discrimination we're talking about. I don't see how I'm wrong when all I'm doing is describing how the current system works...
There's been no laws passed forcing the scouts to accepts gays. Otherwise they already would have and this argument would have never happened. If you don't like your money funding a company that doesn't hold your views, you can vote to have federal funding removed.
Did you even read what I said? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Yes, you can be perfectly qualified for certain work on certain drugs, and in that case you can not be discriminated against by your employer without the potential to sue. Give me a single example of a place that will not hire you for an irrelevant medical drug you're on. I'm in the medical field, volunteer at a hospital, and have not seen it or heard about it a single time in my life.
I did touch your criminal record example, you are not allowed to have certain jobs because you have broken the law and shown yourself to not be responsible. Often times it doesn't even matter if it's a victimless crime, and that can be expunged from your record in many states anyway. If you have committed a felony or a crime with a victim, then you have shown that you should not be in a professional field where you are a trusted person in a position of power. A person with a past assault and battery charge cannot be trusted as an EMT. A person with past drug abuse problems should not be trusted as a doctor. These are legitimate reasons to "discriminate".
Also you apparently have no idea how the legislature process works if you think you can umm...vote to have federal funding removed from certain organizations?
You vote in representatives who decide where the federal money goes. Same thing.
It's not even remotely close to the same thing.
Care to explain? The end result is the exact same. Your votes decide where the money goes.
It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights.
Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race...
If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone.
[quote]
stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots.
That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards.
Unqualified and overweight in certain areas is not discrimination, if ur not qualified you cannot do the job properly if ur overweight in construction industry it might hurt your health or you may not be able to do the job. Discriminating because someone is gay which has no bearing on ability or qualifications is discrimation and if government pays that company and they discriminate then in essence they support it.
Discrimination's definition isn't as narrow as you're painting it to be. Take the earlier medicinal drugs argument. Or how 'bout a new one. Many companies discriminate employers based on the criminal record. Something that has no bearing on qualifications or ability. Yet it's still done. Because an employer/company/organization is allowed to make their own rules, even while federally funded.
Why are you still even arguing this, just admit you're wrong and stop fishing. Wow. You are trying to win an argument on semantics about what discrimination is when no one cares. There is a reason that people on medicinal drugs are not allowed to do a job, because they are not qualified to do a job---I know people on things such as strong painkillers, they shouldn't be trusted to do very much. There is a reason that construction workers cannot be overweight, because they will not be qualified for the job. My uncle and cousin work in the construction field, this is true. Many companies will not allow a criminal in their field because it is a position of trust and you have shown yourself to be untrustworthy in the eyes of the law---I am a pre-med student that volunteers at hospitals, I know the reason they won't hire certain criminals.
However, companies are NOT allowed to discriminate on things irrelevant to the job such as race, gender (unless being a female makes them unqualified for it, for example a job that requires a lot of heavy lifting), etc. That's called equal opportunity employing, if you have filled out a job application you know what that is.
Your argument is just ridiculous. Stop.
You can be perfectly qualified for certain work while on certain drugs. I notice no one has touched my criminal record example yet. Because it's a clear example of the exact discrimination we're talking about. I don't see how I'm wrong when all I'm doing is describing how the current system works...
There's been no laws passed forcing the scouts to accepts gays. Otherwise they already would have and this argument would have never happened. If you don't like your money funding a company that doesn't hold your views, you can vote to have federal funding removed.
Did you even read what I said? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Yes, you can be perfectly qualified for certain work on certain drugs, and in that case you can not be discriminated against by your employer without the potential to sue. Give me a single example of a place that will not hire you for an irrelevant medical drug you're on. I'm in the medical field, volunteer at a hospital, and have not seen it or heard about it a single time in my life.
I did touch your criminal record example, you are not allowed to have certain jobs because you have broken the law and shown yourself to not be responsible. Often times it doesn't even matter if it's a victimless crime, and that can be expunged from your record in many states anyway. If you have committed a felony or a crime with a victim, then you have shown that you should not be in a professional field where you are a trusted person in a position of power. A person with a past assault and battery charge cannot be trusted as an EMT. A person with past drug abuse problems should not be trusted as a doctor. These are legitimate reasons to "discriminate".
Also you apparently have no idea how the legislature process works if you think you can umm...vote to have federal funding removed from certain organizations?
You vote in representatives who decide where the federal money goes. Same thing.
It's not even remotely close to the same thing.
Care to explain? The end result is the exact same. Your votes decide where the money goes.
Because again, if you have ever experienced how the real world works, you would realize that 1) there are a limited number of people that run for office, there is not a candidate that will agree with every thing you also agree with, so you may vote someone in for their views on a couple things but their views could be completely different; 2) this is not exactly a platform you will often be aware of when voting a person in office in the first place; 3) the person in office may change their opinion once they get into office, happens all the time. So on and so on.
Do you live in some sort of parallel universe that has somehow managed to merge their internet with my universe?
Still, no one has provided me with a law/bill/right that says you can't discriminate in an organization that is federally funded. I highly doubt there is one, or there wouldn't be a debate about the scouts letting people in. Because they would be forced to let people in.
I'll have to check, but I don't recall being asked if I believed in a higher power during my Eagle board of review.
and yea, the topic of homosexuality and atheism were just generally not talked about at all. Would be interesting if this resolution made it through, I don't really see why it shouldnt.
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.'
Also, the organization being religiously discriminatory goes against the establishment clause of the first amendment.
That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards.
Unqualified and overweight in certain areas is not discrimination, if ur not qualified you cannot do the job properly if ur overweight in construction industry it might hurt your health or you may not be able to do the job. Discriminating because someone is gay which has no bearing on ability or qualifications is discrimation and if government pays that company and they discriminate then in essence they support it.
Discrimination's definition isn't as narrow as you're painting it to be. Take the earlier medicinal drugs argument. Or how 'bout a new one. Many companies discriminate employers based on the criminal record. Something that has no bearing on qualifications or ability. Yet it's still done. Because an employer/company/organization is allowed to make their own rules, even while federally funded.
Why are you still even arguing this, just admit you're wrong and stop fishing. Wow. You are trying to win an argument on semantics about what discrimination is when no one cares. There is a reason that people on medicinal drugs are not allowed to do a job, because they are not qualified to do a job---I know people on things such as strong painkillers, they shouldn't be trusted to do very much. There is a reason that construction workers cannot be overweight, because they will not be qualified for the job. My uncle and cousin work in the construction field, this is true. Many companies will not allow a criminal in their field because it is a position of trust and you have shown yourself to be untrustworthy in the eyes of the law---I am a pre-med student that volunteers at hospitals, I know the reason they won't hire certain criminals.
However, companies are NOT allowed to discriminate on things irrelevant to the job such as race, gender (unless being a female makes them unqualified for it, for example a job that requires a lot of heavy lifting), etc. That's called equal opportunity employing, if you have filled out a job application you know what that is.
Your argument is just ridiculous. Stop.
You can be perfectly qualified for certain work while on certain drugs. I notice no one has touched my criminal record example yet. Because it's a clear example of the exact discrimination we're talking about. I don't see how I'm wrong when all I'm doing is describing how the current system works...
There's been no laws passed forcing the scouts to accepts gays. Otherwise they already would have and this argument would have never happened. If you don't like your money funding a company that doesn't hold your views, you can vote to have federal funding removed.
Did you even read what I said? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Yes, you can be perfectly qualified for certain work on certain drugs, and in that case you can not be discriminated against by your employer without the potential to sue. Give me a single example of a place that will not hire you for an irrelevant medical drug you're on. I'm in the medical field, volunteer at a hospital, and have not seen it or heard about it a single time in my life.
I did touch your criminal record example, you are not allowed to have certain jobs because you have broken the law and shown yourself to not be responsible. Often times it doesn't even matter if it's a victimless crime, and that can be expunged from your record in many states anyway. If you have committed a felony or a crime with a victim, then you have shown that you should not be in a professional field where you are a trusted person in a position of power. A person with a past assault and battery charge cannot be trusted as an EMT. A person with past drug abuse problems should not be trusted as a doctor. These are legitimate reasons to "discriminate".
Also you apparently have no idea how the legislature process works if you think you can umm...vote to have federal funding removed from certain organizations?
You vote in representatives who decide where the federal money goes. Same thing.
It's not even remotely close to the same thing.
Care to explain? The end result is the exact same. Your votes decide where the money goes.
Because again, if you have ever experienced how the real world works, you would realize that 1) there are a limited number of people that run for office, there is not a candidate that will agree with every thing you also agree with, so you may vote someone in for their views on a couple things but their views could be completely different; 2) this is not exactly a platform you will often be aware of when voting a person in office in the first place; 3) the person in office may change their opinion once they get into office, happens all the time. So on and so on.
Do you live in some sort of parallel universe that has somehow managed to merge their internet with my universe?
I never said the system was perfect, that's a completely different problem. But there are options available to those that take issue with the problem of organizations that discriminate. The option to force people to change their rules isn't there. So, it's probably best to use the options you do have if you really have a problem, no?
As an eagle scout, and having been a scout for 7 years this is something that needs to be changed as soon as possible and I hope they make the correct decision. Theres no reason to exclude gay members and leaders from a program that can be so beneficial to young people throughout america.
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.
If the government and their workings are binded by non-discrimination laws, and you dislike what a private organization is doing in violation of their funder's rules, than call the funder and tell it to them. Being an intolerant "tolerant" on the internet yelling at the BSA because they don't adhere to your values isn't going to change anything. You can most certainly yell at Washington over it, and you leave it up to them to make an impact. If politicians don't do what you want, you get new ones. If the available ones suck you make a new one and gather support from like-minded people and take matters into your own hands. Just going out (and by "out", I mean angrily shouting into cyberspace from the comfort of your chair) and telling people that you don't like them and that they need to give up what they believe in and conform to you just makes you look like the stereotypical entitled teenagers that elderly groan about.
Listen in order to prove homosexuality is not a choice, scientists will literally have to tell me which kids will end up gay and which kids will end up straight because there has to be something different about them right?
I can accept that there is a possibility that it is not a choice ,however, you would have to prove to me beyond a doubt that being gay is not a choice.That being said, i accept the choices that people make, but it in no way entitles me to respect your decision only accept it.
With this thinking, I can also say I do not agree with gay marriage , but if they adopt a kid or something i accept the fact that they should get the same discounts as married people, however, if it is only them I do not think they should. Why? A married couple can have kids whenever they want without any medical aid period ie: sperm donors for lesbians and adoption for gay couples.This means that straight couples can all of a sudden have a kid on the way while gay couples will never experience this unless they aren't completely gay.
On June 08 2012 11:43 decker247777 wrote: Listen in order to prove homosexuality is not a choice, scientists will literally have to tell me which kids will end up gay and which kids will end up straight because there has to be something different about them right?
I can accept that there is a possibility that it is not a choice ,however, you would have to prove to me beyond a doubt that being gay is not a choice.That being said, i accept the choices that people make, but it in no way entitles me to respect your decision only accept it.
With this thinking, I can also say I do not agree with gay marriage , but if they adopt a kid or something i accept the fact that they should get the same discounts as married people, however, if it is only them I do not think they should. Why? A married couple can have kids whenever they want without any medical aid period ie: sperm donors for lesbians and adoption for gay couples.This means that straight couples can all of a sudden have a kid on the way while gay couples will never experience this unless they aren't completely gay.
On June 08 2012 11:43 decker247777 wrote: Listen in order to prove homosexuality is not a choice, scientists will literally have to tell me which kids will end up gay and which kids will end up straight because there has to be something different about them right?
I can accept that there is a possibility that it is not a choice ,however, you would have to prove to me beyond a doubt that being gay is not a choice.That being said, i accept the choices that people make, but it in no way entitles me to respect your decision only accept it.
With this thinking, I can also say I do not agree with gay marriage , but if they adopt a kid or something i accept the fact that they should get the same discounts as married people, however, if it is only them I do not think they should. Why? A married couple can have kids whenever they want without any medical aid period ie: sperm donors for lesbians and adoption for gay couples.This means that straight couples can all of a sudden have a kid on the way while gay couples will never experience this unless they aren't completely gay.
1.) No one has to prove anything to you, especially when the burden of proof is ridiculous. How about scientists also tell us every person that is going to end up with some sort of depression or mental instability? Those aren't exactly choices either, but scientists could not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they're not. I'm sure all of those people that were bullied, assaulted, mocked, discriminated against, etc. just suddenly made a choice to like guys because...you know, that worked out so well for them right?
I didn't choose to like women and I doubt you did either, unless you are secretly homosexual and hiding it. People don't just go "well, I guess I'm just going to choose to have sex with men because why not?" No one is going to want to choose be considered a second class citizen in the eyes of millions of people in this country. How does that even make sense to you? In your fantasy world do people who choose to be gay just love negative attention, often being treated horribly, etc? Contrary to what you may have seen in a summer teen comedy, people don't "go gay" to try to get close to some girl or whatever you think they do.
Personally, I have zero interest in having sex with a male. If you could make the choice to want one, you may want to consider the possibility you are gay or bisexual and in denial.
2.) It doesn't even matter if it's a choice in the first place, they should still be able to "choose" to be gay and there's no reason they shouldn't.
3.) No one cares if you don't respect the opinion, as long as you do accept it. This is a matter of acceptance.
3.) Cool completely random arbitrary reason for not supporting gay marriage, good thing you are not a legislator.
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.
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 guess sometimes it's hard to actually come to the terms with the fact some people lack common sense and reading comprehension. I wish everyone could debate logically and come up with fair arguments, but I have to remind myself that unfortunately there are people incapable of that. :/ I mean, that sounds completely elitist but honestly.
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 guess sometimes it's hard to actually come to the terms with the fact some people lack common sense and reading comprehension. I wish everyone could debate logically and come up with fair arguments, but I have to remind myself that unfortunately there are people incapable of that. :/ I mean, that sounds completely elitist but honestly.
Ya'll just keep on insulting without addressing points. It makes you look very credible. Still haven't linked or cited any sources that back your claim that Federally funded organizations must invite people equally.
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 guess sometimes it's hard to actually come to the terms with the fact some people lack common sense and reading comprehension. I wish everyone could debate logically and come up with fair arguments, but I have to remind myself that unfortunately there are people incapable of that. :/ I mean, that sounds completely elitist but honestly.
Ya'll just keep on insulting without addressing points. It makes you look very credible. Still haven't linked or cited any sources that back your claim that Federally funded organizations must invite people equally.
I never said they did, all I did was just completely embarrass you and you dropped the argument.
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 guess sometimes it's hard to actually come to the terms with the fact some people lack common sense and reading comprehension. I wish everyone could debate logically and come up with fair arguments, but I have to remind myself that unfortunately there are people incapable of that. :/ I mean, that sounds completely elitist but honestly.
Ya'll just keep on insulting without addressing points. It makes you look very credible. Still haven't linked or cited any sources that back your claim that Federally funded organizations must invite people equally.
I never said they did, all I did was just completely embarrass you and you dropped the argument.
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.
On June 08 2012 12:31 Uncultured wrote: 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.
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 14:56 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 07:39 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 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''
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.
On June 08 2012 12:31 Uncultured wrote: 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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
I don't know about you, but my two gay friends are exactly like every other male, except for their sexual orientation.
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.
I don't know about you, but my two gay friends are exactly like every other male, except for their sexual orientation.
for me its the opposite ive only seen gay people talk like girls and wear girly clothes. It varies a lot apparently.
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.
I don't know about you, but my two gay friends are exactly like every other male, except for their sexual orientation.
for me its the opposite ive only seen gay people talk like girls and wear girly clothes. It varies a lot apparently.
How many gay people do you know? How many exist in the world?
Do you see how your argument is anecdotal? Don't make sweeping statements about an entire group of people based on a few of your own experiences. Also, I dare say you've passed by a lot of gay people without even noticing it.
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.
I'm going to go ahead and call you a troll at this point. I don't think anybody could be this ignorant and homophobic. The only way I could see you not being a troll would be if you're from the westboro baptist church.
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
While that's true, I don't think it's something citizens should actively allow to happen--a government funded/subsidized organization that actively discriminates against anyone for any reason. While it will change in time, in the mean time everyone is still paying taxes. In this particular case, anyone that's anti-gay that wants to see money go to BSA for specifically their anti-gay policies can simply donate to them (much as any white supremacist can donate to a KKK chapter... wherever those sad things still exist.) I think any person can ultimately agree that they'd be against an organization that they had to pay to fund if it was discriminatory against THEM specifically (ie; their eye color, or their hair color, or whatever reason)
On June 08 2012 04:06 CptCutter wrote: gays should be allowed to be members, but not leaders. i cant get all these catholic priest incidents from the UK out of my head. i have nothing against gays, but sometimes it could be a bit much putting a homosexual man in charge of a group of teenagers that go on camping trips and the such.
Except you clearly do have something against them. Your post is contradictory. You say you have no problem, but if that were true then you wouldn't care. So obviously you have a problem, but you are just in denial about it. Being gay doesn't make someone a potential pedophile.
everyone is a potential to be a pedophile. but i would wager money on a higher percentage of gays being pedophiles in this sense, since well, you have to be gay to even do this? unless your saying that teenage boys are not considered male?
On June 08 2012 04:06 CptCutter wrote: gays should be allowed to be members, but not leaders. i cant get all these catholic priest incidents from the UK out of my head. i have nothing against gays, but sometimes it could be a bit much putting a homosexual man in charge of a group of teenagers that go on camping trips and the such.
Except you clearly do have something against them. Your post is contradictory. You say you have no problem, but if that were true then you wouldn't care. So obviously you have a problem, but you are just in denial about it. Being gay doesn't make someone a potential pedophile.
everyone is a potential to be a pedophile. but i would wager money on a higher percentage of gays being pedophiles in this sense, since well, you have to be gay to even do this? unless your saying that teenage boys are not considered male?
Alright... What?
You realize pedophilia is gender independent right? It's simply an attraction to children. In that sense I don't understand why you would wager a higher percentage of gays are pedophiles. Why should anyone take that statement seriously?
What do you mean, "You have to be gay to even do this?". Being gay has nothing to do with pedophilia.
On June 10 2012 02:00 blug wrote: I think Americans have bigger fish to fry rather than worrying about gays...
This isn't adding anything. Worrying about the gays doesn't automatically make the other issues less important or even take significant resources away from other issues. Just because there are bigger issues doesn't mean you neglect everything else.
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.
Any man can fuck a girl, girls are generally weaker and more submissive. That takes no real skill or manliness. To exert your sexual dominance over another man though, now there's an act of masculinity, power and dominance. Pussy is for pussies. Real men fuck men.
Dang.... I would've joined the girl scouts if the name weren't so emasculating for a guy. If they called it "Happy Scouts" instead then that would be so legit. I think it's better marketing too on their part if they change their name to be not so obviously unmanly, that would be awesome
On June 10 2012 02:46 flamewheel wrote: As a long-time scout, I knew several of my fellows were gay (both troop members and coworkers at camp). Lift the ban, I say.
Also, why are the boy scouts still religiously affiliated. Is there something manly about believing in a certain faith at the age of 5? :/
On June 08 2012 23:36 Zedders wrote: gay people exist. boy scouts exist. gay boy scouts should exist
Even though you're right on that, that's logically wrong.
Female people exist Boy scouts exist Female boy scouts should exist
Poplar trees exist Boy scouts exist Poplar tree boy scouts should exist
Any man can fuck a girl, girls are generally weaker and more submissive. That takes no real skill or manliness. To exert your sexual dominance over another man though, now there's an act of masculinity, power and dominance. Pussy is for pussies. Real men fuck men.
Wait, so gay sexuality is all about domination and power ? Surely you're not serious.
Any man can fuck a girl, girls are generally weaker and more submissive. That takes no real skill or manliness. To exert your sexual dominance over another man though, now there's an act of masculinity, power and dominance. Pussy is for pussies. Real men fuck men.
Wait, so gay sexuality is all about domination and power ? Surely you're not serious.
Any man can fuck a girl, girls are generally weaker and more submissive. That takes no real skill or manliness. To exert your sexual dominance over another man though, now there's an act of masculinity, power and dominance. Pussy is for pussies. Real men fuck men.
Wait, so gay sexuality is all about domination and power ? Surely you're not serious.
Technically he was saying that male sexuality is all about domination and power.
On June 10 2012 02:46 flamewheel wrote: As a long-time scout, I knew several of my fellows were gay (both troop members and coworkers at camp). Lift the ban, I say.
Also, why are the boy scouts still religiously affiliated. Is there something manly about believing in a certain faith at the age of 5? :/
The boy scouts isn't about masculinity and manliness. Its founded on religious morals and becoming a good citizen.
For example, the Scout Oath is:
On my honor I will do my best To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.
The Scout Law is:
A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.
Clean includes not only physical attributes, but mental and sexual attributes. Reverent as quoted from the Official BSA website means: "A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others."
Technically he was saying that male sexuality is all about domination and power.
You're right indeed. What I was thinking was that,you see, it may please some males to think they "dominate" women but that's only their point of view. Between males, the two partners may have whichever role they chose, and exert all their domination power as they please to obtain their favourite one, if they have one (they can also not mind I guess, I wouldn't know at all). If you're keen on women, there's no imposing any role to anyone, everything is already set out.
Technically he was saying that male sexuality is all about domination and power.
You're right indeed. What I was thinking was that,you see, it may please some males to think they "dominate" women but that's only their point of view. Between males, the two partners may have whichever role they chose, and exert all their domination power as they please to obtain their favourite one, if they have one (they can also not mind I guess, I wouldn't know at all). If you're keen on women, there's no imposing any role to anyone, everything is already set out.
On June 10 2012 04:58 Kyrillion wrote: If I believe in Allah, can I join ?
A person of any region can join according to the scouting by laws, but be careful around the parents, in my experience they tend to be the bigoted ones, not the scouts or the leaders.
Sorry for the necro, but i though this question should be answered.
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.
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.
I agree with this. Whether it's right or wrong to allow gay people to join doesn't matter. The Boy Scouts are a private organization and I believe that if they don't want to allow gay people that's their right.
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.
I agree with this. Whether it's right or wrong to allow gay people to join doesn't matter. The Boy Scouts are a private organization and I believe that if they don't want to allow gay people that's their right.
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.
I agree with this. Whether it's right or wrong to allow gay people to join doesn't matter. The Boy Scouts are a private organization and I believe that if they don't want to allow gay people that's their right.
Then they shouldn't get federal funding.
why not? why should the government tell a private organization what to do and what rules to have just because they help fund them? federal funding went to planned parenthood, an organization i don't support, for a long time and continues to go to them. the Boy Scouts should be able to have their own rules and autonomy from the government, i don't care how much money they get from the feds.
Some people don't like the government giving money to the boy scouts, ok.
Well some people don't like the government using their money for wars they don't agree with. Or cutting welfare checks to people. Or paying for birth control, etc.
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
You don't have to be gay to rape someone of the same sex...
Thats hard to believe. Is this proven?
Uhh what would constitute proof to you? Ever heard of what happens in prison? Ask some of those guys who rape people whether they consider themselves gay or not.
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.
I agree with this. Whether it's right or wrong to allow gay people to join doesn't matter. The Boy Scouts are a private organization and I believe that if they don't want to allow gay people that's their right.
Then they shouldn't get federal funding.
why not? why should the government tell a private organization what to do and what rules to have just because they help fund them? federal funding went to planned parenthood, an organization i don't support, for a long time and continues to go to them. the Boy Scouts should be able to have their own rules and autonomy from the government, i don't care how much money they get from the feds.
The government can choose who it gives its money to. You can claim you "don't support" Planned Parenthood but the government stipulates none of the money is used for presumably the part you don't agree with, the abortions. Unless you don't support breast screening and general women's health issues. So actually the government is refusing to give its money to fund abortions.
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
You don't have to be gay to rape someone of the same sex...
Thats hard to believe. Is this proven?
Uhh what would constitute proof to you? Ever heard of what happens in prison? Ask some of those guys who rape people whether they consider themselves gay or not.
Rapists arent straight or gay then. they have theyr own catagorie named rapist.
For a community that is subjected to harsh stereotypes by the mainstream of society day in and day out, the number of "no" votes is astonishing.
A federally funded institution may not discriminate on the grounds of sex, race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation.
Even if laws like Title IX don't cover every category above, the clause of non-discrimination is a fundamental American ideal since the 20th century. It's really that simple.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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 00:43 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 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.
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 00:43 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 00:43 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.
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.
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?
Ya it does. The minute I find out someone is straight I stop thinking about him as a potential partner.
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.
Only if the straight boy scouts aren't allowed to discuss their sexuality either does this policy make sense.
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".
Only if the straight boy scouts aren't allowed to discuss their sexuality does this make an ounce of sense.
On June 12 2012 09:54 diophan wrote: The government can choose who it gives its money to. You can claim you "don't support" Planned Parenthood but the government stipulates none of the money is used for presumably the part you don't agree with, the abortions. Unless you don't support breast screening and general women's health issues. So actually the government is refusing to give its money to fund abortions.
the federal funding allows for them to free up funds for abortions. whether the feds are directly paying for the abortion or the thing that allows them to provide the abortion, it's all semantics and irrelevant.
you still haven't told me why the feds should be able to control every little aspect of the BSA just because they help fund them. the feds give schools money, i guess they should be allowed to force our kids to be prostitutes.
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?
How many actual lesbians do you know? How many of them are you sexually attracted to?
On June 12 2012 09:54 diophan wrote: The government can choose who it gives its money to. You can claim you "don't support" Planned Parenthood but the government stipulates none of the money is used for presumably the part you don't agree with, the abortions. Unless you don't support breast screening and general women's health issues. So actually the government is refusing to give its money to fund abortions.
the federal funding allows for them to free up funds for abortions. whether the feds are directly paying for the abortion or the thing that allows them to provide the abortion, it's all semantics and irrelevant.
you still haven't told me why the feds should be able to control every little aspect of the BSA just because they help fund them. the feds give schools money, i guess they should be allowed to force our kids to be prostitutes.
Yes, the federal government telling the Boy Scouts if they want federal funding they cannot discriminate against people based on being in an established class of people afforded equal protection is the same as forcing kids into prostitution. By the way, I'm sure you'll disagree with this, but state governments have recently refused to give Catholic adoption agencies their money because they refuse to adopt to gay couples. Why? Because gay people are afforded equal protection under the law.
Also free up funds to abortion lol. Have you ever been to a Planned Parenthood or have any idea what their budget is and where the money goes?
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?
Ya it does. The minute I find out someone is straight I stop thinking about him as a potential partner.
It's more than that. There are all sorts of cues and body language signals that just aren't there. Whether you know it or not you throw off all sorts of signals when dealing with a potential sex partner that are subconsciously read by said potential partner. Straight guys don't throw those off, gay guys don't read them, the relationship immediately becomes platonic. Subconscious gaydar is definitely a real thing.
On June 08 2012 23:36 Zedders wrote: gay people exist. boy scouts exist. gay boy scouts should exist
Even though you're right on that, that's logically wrong.
Female people exist Boy scouts exist Female boy scouts should exist
Poplar trees exist Boy scouts exist Poplar tree boy scouts should exist
Yea I know lol.
That was aimed for people like you that would over analyze my poor logic Regardless, I wanted to state that it's senseless to restrict membership because of an irrelevant sexual orientation status.
Of course, if the Boy Scout's doctrine literally stands for anti-gay lifestyle and condemn homosexuality in their activities it would make sense for them to ban gays. It is my understanding that they probably do not cover sexuality in the boy scouts (I hope) and as such should have no bearing on the member's sexual orientation.
That being said, I'm sure the boy scouts way of life isn't exactly a gay-friendly experience, as with most all-male gatherings, gay bashing can be a somewhat passive activity.
On June 12 2012 09:54 diophan wrote: The government can choose who it gives its money to. You can claim you "don't support" Planned Parenthood but the government stipulates none of the money is used for presumably the part you don't agree with, the abortions. Unless you don't support breast screening and general women's health issues. So actually the government is refusing to give its money to fund abortions.
the federal funding allows for them to free up funds for abortions. whether the feds are directly paying for the abortion or the thing that allows them to provide the abortion, it's all semantics and irrelevant.
you still haven't told me why the feds should be able to control every little aspect of the BSA just because they help fund them. the feds give schools money, i guess they should be allowed to force our kids to be prostitutes.
You have got to be trolling.
There is a world of difference between outlawing discrimination and forcing children into prostitution. Also, the fed tells people what to do all the time. That is what governments do. That is the whole point of governments. If we did not need rules then we would not have governments at all.
On June 08 2012 23:36 Zedders wrote: gay people exist. boy scouts exist. gay boy scouts should exist
Even though you're right on that, that's logically wrong.
Female people exist Boy scouts exist Female boy scouts should exist
Poplar trees exist Boy scouts exist Poplar tree boy scouts should exist
Yea I know lol.
That was aimed for people like you that would over analyze my poor logic Regardless, I wanted to state that it's senseless to restrict membership because of an irrelevant sexual orientation status.
Of course, if the Boy Scout's doctrine literally stands for anti-gay lifestyle and condemn homosexuality in their activities it would make sense for them to ban gays. It is my understanding that they probably do not cover sexuality in the boy scouts (I hope) and as such should have no bearing on the member's sexual orientation.
That being said, I'm sure the boy scouts way of life isn't exactly a gay-friendly experience, as with most all-male gatherings, gay bashing can be a somewhat passive activity.
But children will not stop gay bashing until they are around gays and are given they chance to understand that gay people are not going to come on to them.
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?
How many actual lesbians do you know? How many of them are you sexually attracted to?
We probably need some first hand experience from actual gay people about whether they find straight people attractive even after they know of their orientation. I don't think its clear cut that a person is either 100% straight or gay, its more like a sliding scale where you can have 80-90% or 50% (bisexual). So if thats the case, I think its conceivable that a gay person would try to hit on someone he/she finds really interesting & attractive, even if they have a different orientation, because they might respond and decide to experiment.
Therefore it could become awkward because the boy scouts typically don't have to deal with romantic interests. But I think while the potential for some uncomfortable situations to arise is there, its not bad enough that there should be any don't ask don't tell policies because its important that people are out in the open about who they are and feel proud of themselves. Its more important to support equality among people of different orientations than it is to be concerned with the potential downsides of being in an uncomfortable situation. In the end they'll all learn how to deal with people of different orientations and talk out their differences, which is definitely a good thing for any boy scout to learn.
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?
How many actual lesbians do you know? How many of them are you sexually attracted to?
We probably need some first hand experience from actual gay people about whether they find straight people attractive even after they know of their orientation. I don't think its clear cut that a person is either 100% straight or gay, its more like a sliding scale where you can have 80-90% or 50% (bisexual). So if thats the case, I think its conceivable that a gay person would try to hit on someone he/she finds really interesting & attractive, even if they have a different orientation, because they might respond and decide to experiment.
Therefore it could become awkward because the boy scouts typically don't have to deal with romantic interests. But I think while the potential for some uncomfortable situations to arise is there, its not bad enough that there should be any don't ask don't tell policies because its important that people are out in the open about who they are and feel proud of themselves. Its more important to support equality among people of different orientations than it is to be concerned with the potential downsides of being in an uncomfortable situation. In the end they'll all learn how to deal with people of different orientations and talk out their differences, which is definitely a good thing for any boy scout to learn.
The part that bugs me most about this entire discussion is in particular about the scout leaders. There are many cases of straight scout leaders sexually abusing kids, and unless I'm mistaken none of the scout leaders who sexually abused kids has said he's gay. Being gay doesn't have anything to do with sexually abusing 12 year old boys. That's like saying straight men would sexually abuse 12 year old girls given the chance.
Uhh what would constitute proof to you? Ever heard of what happens in prison? Ask some of those guys who rape people whether they consider themselves gay or not
But why would what they consider have to be true ?
By that logic it would be okay if the boy scouts did not allow black members.
Well, black people have a harder time camouflaging in the woods.
The only reason I can imagine that this hasn't already happened is due to the BSA being headquartered in some backwards-ass conservative state (Texas) so all the higher up are from the area.
There's been gays in Boy Scouts as long as that ban has been in place. When I saw a scout the scoutmaster's own son was gay, granted I didn't live in Texas.
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?
How many actual lesbians do you know? How many of them are you sexually attracted to?
We probably need some first hand experience from actual gay people about whether they find straight people attractive even after they know of their orientation. I don't think its clear cut that a person is either 100% straight or gay, its more like a sliding scale where you can have 80-90% or 50% (bisexual). So if thats the case, I think its conceivable that a gay person would try to hit on someone he/she finds really interesting & attractive, even if they have a different orientation, because they might respond and decide to experiment.
Therefore it could become awkward because the boy scouts typically don't have to deal with romantic interests. But I think while the potential for some uncomfortable situations to arise is there, its not bad enough that there should be any don't ask don't tell policies because its important that people are out in the open about who they are and feel proud of themselves. Its more important to support equality among people of different orientations than it is to be concerned with the potential downsides of being in an uncomfortable situation. In the end they'll all learn how to deal with people of different orientations and talk out their differences, which is definitely a good thing for any boy scout to learn.
The part that bugs me most about this entire discussion is in particular about the scout leaders. There are many cases of straight scout leaders sexually abusing kids, and unless I'm mistaken none of the scout leaders who sexually abused kids has said he's gay. Being gay doesn't have anything to do with sexually abusing 12 year old boys. That's like saying straight men would sexually abuse 12 year old girls given the chance.
The vast majority of child molesters, whether they are molesting children of the same or opposite gender, will identify themselves as straight.
On June 12 2012 09:54 diophan wrote: The government can choose who it gives its money to. You can claim you "don't support" Planned Parenthood but the government stipulates none of the money is used for presumably the part you don't agree with, the abortions. Unless you don't support breast screening and general women's health issues. So actually the government is refusing to give its money to fund abortions.
the federal funding allows for them to free up funds for abortions. whether the feds are directly paying for the abortion or the thing that allows them to provide the abortion, it's all semantics and irrelevant.
you still haven't told me why the feds should be able to control every little aspect of the BSA just because they help fund them. the feds give schools money, i guess they should be allowed to force our kids to be prostitutes.
User was temp banned for this post.
Shouldn't the state by that logic give me back the tax dollars I paid for two fucking unwinnable and downright retarded wars?
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?
How many actual lesbians do you know? How many of them are you sexually attracted to?
We probably need some first hand experience from actual gay people about whether they find straight people attractive even after they know of their orientation. I don't think its clear cut that a person is either 100% straight or gay, its more like a sliding scale where you can have 80-90% or 50% (bisexual). So if thats the case, I think its conceivable that a gay person would try to hit on someone he/she finds really interesting & attractive, even if they have a different orientation, because they might respond and decide to experiment.
Therefore it could become awkward because the boy scouts typically don't have to deal with romantic interests. But I think while the potential for some uncomfortable situations to arise is there, its not bad enough that there should be any don't ask don't tell policies because its important that people are out in the open about who they are and feel proud of themselves. Its more important to support equality among people of different orientations than it is to be concerned with the potential downsides of being in an uncomfortable situation. In the end they'll all learn how to deal with people of different orientations and talk out their differences, which is definitely a good thing for any boy scout to learn.
This whole conversation is a little silly. Of course gay guys are attracted to straight guys. It happens all the time because physical attraction is often the first step (comes before actually getting to know the person). That said, I have never understood why, for straight guys, a gay guy hitting on them is any different from a girl they don't like hitting on them. As a gay guy I get hit on all the time in straight bars and i find it to be pretty damn flattering lol. Some people just need to learn to take a compliment.
I can't think of a single good reason to forbid gay people from occupying any job/club they want (unless it's like a church/religious/ethical organization that's privately funded and doesn't want gay people, or something). I have no idea why anyone would have a problem with gay people being in the Boy Scouts. They're just people like anyone else. There are some bad ones, certainly, but there are tonnes of bad straight people, too.
I'm not gay myself, but I've never really had a problem with the orientation of anyone I've worked/studied with...and I can't imagine why anyone would.
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".
Yes it's completely immature. Your solution "oh dear lord there are gays let's just pretend they aren't there and everything will go swimmingly!" It's prudish and childish. Grow up.
Maybe you don't understand what "don't ask don't tell" is. Because what that implies is that if you ever find out that a scout is gay, he's cut. Banned. Goodbye. So don't pretend this isn't a homophobic policy.
By most standards I'm pretty bigoted. I wouldn't support legal requirements for all organizations to allow gay members/leaders. If a homosexual presidential candidate were going out for election, to me personally, it would be a huge negative against me voting for him.
None the less, I was a boy scout growing up, and I can't think of a legitimate reason why gay members should not be allowed in boy scouts, either leaders or scouts. I would not have had a problem with a gay scout in my troop, although granted I'd probably have been more immature about sharing a tent with him than I probably should have been had there been one.
I personally really do believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice primarily. I think everyone chooses how sexual or asexual they ultimately are in leading their life, and I think it's rarely impossible to be able to find someone you can honestly love of any gender or physical state if you're willing to take responsibility for your own well being and person hood (dysfunctional people tend to have dysfunctional relationships, regardless of what sex they are dating). This being the case, I do not believe it is inappropriate for religious or philosophical groups to discriminate on the basis of sexual behavior in regards to their own membership.
But boy scouts is not a religious or philosophical group, they are an activity group. Boy scouts is an institution with a mission of enriching the life of boys through education and exploration of the wilderness and survival within it. How does past sexual behavior or preference interfere with your ability to enjoy nature? Or your ability to contribute to a survival exercise? CERTAINLY restrictions need to be put in place for leadership regarding inappropriate sexual conduct, but the claim that homosexual men are innately any more dangerous to children than heterosexual men is EXTREMELY libelous, and again and again it's shown that it is not backed up by statistical reality (very slightly higher is not a fair qualifier for discrimination against individuals, especially when sexual classification is so dynamic and subjective).
I for one am utterly SHOCKED that the percentage of people who think this policy should not be overturned is nearly 25% on these forums. I would think that even others like me, who don't believe that homosexuality is 'right' would at least agree that the moral questionably doesn't entail discrimination from an organization like boy scouts.
On June 13 2012 11:22 SwiftSpear wrote: By most standards I'm pretty bigoted. I wouldn't support legal requirements for all organizations to allow gay members/leaders. If a homosexual presidential candidate were going out for election, to me personally, it would be a huge negative against me voting for him.
None the less, I was a boy scout growing up, and I can't think of a legitimate reason why gay members should not be allowed in boy scouts, either leaders or scouts. I would not have had a problem with a gay scout in my troop, although granted I'd probably have been more immature about sharing a tent with him than I probably should have been had there been one.
I personally really do believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice primarily. I think everyone chooses how sexual or asexual they ultimately are in leading their life, and I think it's rarely impossible to be able to find someone you can honestly love of any gender or physical state if you're willing to take responsibility for your own well being and person hood (dysfunctional people tend to have dysfunctional relationships, regardless of what sex they are dating). This being the case, I do not believe it is inappropriate for religious or philosophical groups to discriminate on the basis of sexual behavior in regards to their own membership.
But boy scouts is not a religious or philosophical group, they are an activity group. Boy scouts is an institution with a mission of enriching the life of boys through education and exploration of the wilderness and survival within it. How does past sexual behavior or preference interfere with your ability to enjoy nature? Or your ability to contribute to a survival exercise? CERTAINLY restrictions need to be put in place for leadership regarding inappropriate sexual conduct, but the claim that homosexual men are innately any more dangerous to children than heterosexual men is EXTREMELY libelous, and again and again it's shown that it is not backed up by statistical reality (very slightly higher is not a fair qualifier for discrimination against individuals, especially when sexual classification is so dynamic and subjective).
I for one am utterly SHOCKED that the percentage of people who think this policy should not be overturned is nearly 25% on these forums. I would think that even others like me, who don't believe that homosexuality is 'right' would at least agree that the moral questionably doesn't entail discrimination from an organization like boy scouts.
I think a lot of people simply misread it and thought the question was whether the government should have the authority to force them to allow gays, where as it was actually a referendum put forth by the BSA themselves.
I am an Eagle Scout. We used to joke about this rule all the time. If I can remember, gay scouts were allowed, but there couldn't be openly gay leaders. We have had women leaders, and it seemed like their reasoning was that all gay scout leaders are perverts. It is weird, but we really didn't think much of it because we really didn't care. Much like, if I had a gay officer in the military, it really wouldn't bother me. Unless they were making me uncomfortable, but you aren't in the scouts or the military for sex. You are there to learn things and kill people.
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
So once one gay man does something wrong they all need to go? You cant just group all homosexuals into a massive group. Knowing several gay people i can say that they are just as varied and as good of people as my straight friends.
Oregon Justices Approve Release of Boy Scouts’ ‘Perversion Files’
SEATTLE — Oregon’s highest court cleared the way on Thursday for the release of thousands of pages of documents detailing accusations and investigations of sexual abuse or other improprieties by Boy Scout leaders around the nation from the mid-1960s into the 1980s.
The Boy Scouts of America said in a statement that the file system was kept confidential to encourage reporting of bad or questionable behavior by scout leaders, and that details of old cases, coming to light years after the fact, could still harm innocent victims.
Looks like they ruled in favor continuing the ban:
After a confidential two-year review, the Boy Scouts of America on Tuesday emphatically reaffirmed its policy of excluding gays, ruling out any changes despite relentless protest campaigns by some critics.
After a confidential two-year review, the Boy Scouts of America on Tuesday emphatically reaffirmed its policy of excluding gays, ruling out any changes despite relentless protest campaigns by some critics.
Looks like they ruled in favor continuing the ban:
After a confidential two-year review, the Boy Scouts of America on Tuesday emphatically reaffirmed its policy of excluding gays, ruling out any changes despite relentless protest campaigns by some critics.
I don't see why they should be banned, it's really sad and idiotic, It's not like homosexuals are some kind of horrible monster race out to violate little boys. They should ban catholic priests instead ;-) (bad joke, sorry, dont mean to offend, its just jest)
Wow that article reeked of bullshit. The committee apparently had variety of opinions and yet voted unanimously. The company is going to work from within to change the policy? Sure. I guess that's the kind of reporting fox news does?
Fuck the boy scouts, my son is going to learn the essentials of capitalism from the girl scouts. That's patriotism, dammit.
On July 19 2012 01:50 DoubleReed wrote: Wow that article reeked of bullshit. The committee apparently had variety of opinions and yet voted unanimously. The company is going to work from within to change the policy? Sure. I guess that's the kind of reporting fox news does?
Fuck the boy scouts, my son is going to learn the essentials of capitalism from the girl scouts. That's patriotism, dammit.
The article is fine. It explained the process the scouts took to make a decision, their reasoning behind the decision and criticism from both outside and within the organization.
After a confidential two-year review, the Boy Scouts of America on Tuesday emphatically reaffirmed its policy of excluding gays, ruling out any changes despite relentless protest campaigns by some critics.
....church and boy-scouts are against Gays, probably because straight kids make them more horny and are easier to abuse. Whats up with all that gay hating in america?
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
So once one gay man does something wrong they all need to go? You cant just group all homosexuals into a massive group. Knowing several gay people i can say that they are just as varied and as good of people as my straight friends.
The thing is, no straight guy would ever do it.
Applying your logic, just because some dudes won't do anything there is no need for separate bathrooms for each sex.
I understand your concern about generalising, but we're comparing a scenario of no risk vs some risk, however small it is. Relatively speaking one will always be a winner.
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
So once one gay man does something wrong they all need to go? You cant just group all homosexuals into a massive group. Knowing several gay people i can say that they are just as varied and as good of people as my straight friends.
The thing is, no straight guy would ever do it.
Applying your logic, just because some dudes won't do anything there is no need for separate bathrooms for each sex.
I understand your concern about generalising, but we're comparing a scenario of no risk vs some risk, however small it is. Relatively speaking one will always be a winner.
the root reason isn't even one of molestation (which is a bullshit argument anyway)
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
So once one gay man does something wrong they all need to go? You cant just group all homosexuals into a massive group. Knowing several gay people i can say that they are just as varied and as good of people as my straight friends.
The thing is, no straight guy would ever do it.
Applying your logic, just because some dudes won't do anything there is no need for separate bathrooms for each sex.
I understand your concern about generalising, but we're comparing a scenario of no risk vs some risk, however small it is. Relatively speaking one will always be a winner.
No straight man would ever rape boys? That is absolutely not how it works. If a person if going to rape a child then it does not matter if they are straight or gay or if the child is a girl or boy. Hell, there have been a significant number of catholic priests (who are not openly gay) who have molested young boys.
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
So once one gay man does something wrong they all need to go? You cant just group all homosexuals into a massive group. Knowing several gay people i can say that they are just as varied and as good of people as my straight friends.
The thing is, no straight guy would ever do it.
Applying your logic, just because some dudes won't do anything there is no need for separate bathrooms for each sex.
I understand your concern about generalising, but we're comparing a scenario of no risk vs some risk, however small it is. Relatively speaking one will always be a winner.
No straight man would ever rape boys? That is absolutely not how it works. If a person if going to rape a child then it does not matter if they are straight or gay or if the child is a girl or boy. Hell, there have been a significant number of catholic priests (who are not openly gay) who have molested young boys.
Well smack my ass and call me Judy.
I'll admit a degree of ignorance on the subject. Just kinda assumed that if you wanted dick (no matter the age) you were gay, with the exception of straight prisoners wanting ass out of necessity and it being the next best thing.
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
So once one gay man does something wrong they all need to go? You cant just group all homosexuals into a massive group. Knowing several gay people i can say that they are just as varied and as good of people as my straight friends.
The thing is, no straight guy would ever do it.
Applying your logic, just because some dudes won't do anything there is no need for separate bathrooms for each sex.
I understand your concern about generalising, but we're comparing a scenario of no risk vs some risk, however small it is. Relatively speaking one will always be a winner.
No straight man would ever rape boys? That is absolutely not how it works. If a person if going to rape a child then it does not matter if they are straight or gay or if the child is a girl or boy. Hell, there have been a significant number of catholic priests (who are not openly gay) who have molested young boys.
Well smack my ass and call me Judy.
I'll admit a degree of ignorance on the subject. Just kinda assumed that if you wanted dick (no matter the age) you were gay, with the exception of straight prisoners wanting ass out of necessity and it being the next best thing.
Gay paedophiles are more likely to molest post-pubescent boys, such as young teenagers. Straight paedophiles are more likely to molest pre-pubescent boys.
Just out of curiosity, are the Boy Scouts actually exclusively boys? As in, completely seperate from the Girl Scouts? I ask because I used to be part of the Scouts in my country and we've mixed it up over here. Was one of the best experiences of my childhood too.
On June 07 2012 11:27 DoubleReed wrote: Yea, there was a Bullshit episode on it. It's actually ridiculous because they get federal funding and they have a hateful policy.
Though the Girl Scouts are not affiliated with the Boy Scouts. They have no such policy.
I was pretty conflicted on this topic until I watched the Bullshit episode on it. I'm now ready to vote "Yes" on the poll in the OP with confidence.
On July 19 2012 03:31 Mastermyth wrote: Just out of curiosity, are the Boy Scouts actually exclusively boys? As in, completely seperate from the Girl Scouts? I ask because I used to be part of the Scouts in my country and we've mixed it up over here. Was one of the best experiences of my childhood too.
The Boy Scouts have no affiliation with the Girl Scouts. The boy scouts were sort of hijacked by Mormons a while ago and they are exclusionary to gays and atheists. The girl scouts are not exclusionary at all.
This decision means that troops will still play fast and loose with the paperwork, and practice don't ask don't tell. Nothing will change except that it proves that the old guard of boy scouting are bigoted old men, nothing new for people with knowledge of the system.
The thing that bothers me most is that I had a scout master who was actually physically abusive. He would put clothes pins on kids' fingers, ears, nose, whatever, if he was bothered by them. Not even if the child (early elementary school at this point) was misbehaving or anything either. The scout master was a straight up bully. I left/was pulled out of the scouts after nothing happened to him when it was brought up.
But hey, it's totally cool. At least he wasn't gay, amirite. /sigh
Score another one for bigotry and the "old boys club."
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
So once one gay man does something wrong they all need to go? You cant just group all homosexuals into a massive group. Knowing several gay people i can say that they are just as varied and as good of people as my straight friends.
The thing is, no straight guy would ever do it.
Applying your logic, just because some dudes won't do anything there is no need for separate bathrooms for each sex.
I understand your concern about generalising, but we're comparing a scenario of no risk vs some risk, however small it is. Relatively speaking one will always be a winner.
No straight man would ever rape boys? That is absolutely not how it works. If a person if going to rape a child then it does not matter if they are straight or gay or if the child is a girl or boy. Hell, there have been a significant number of catholic priests (who are not openly gay) who have molested young boys.
Well smack my ass and call me Judy.
I'll admit a degree of ignorance on the subject. Just kinda assumed that if you wanted dick (no matter the age) you were gay, with the exception of straight prisoners wanting ass out of necessity and it being the next best thing.
Yeah, no. If you want to fuck kids, you're a paedophile, not a hetero- or homo-sexual.
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?
How many actual lesbians do you know? How many of them are you sexually attracted to?
Most of you voting Yes on this one I'm willing to bet are not fathers with young boys in the Scouts. You don't want gay men anywhere near your kids let alone camping out overnight somewhere with them.
On July 19 2012 03:59 ElMeanYo wrote: Most of you voting Yes on this one I'm willing to bet are not fathers with young boys in the Scouts. You don't want gay men anywhere near your kids let alone camping out overnight somewhere with them.
You're conflating gay people with pedophiles. They are not one and the same.
Most pedophiles actually identify themselves as being heterosexual.
Id be more concerned about my kid spending time alone in the woods with religious fundamentalists.
On July 19 2012 03:59 ElMeanYo wrote: Most of you voting Yes on this one I'm willing to bet are not fathers with young boys in the Scouts. You don't want gay men anywhere near your kids let alone camping out overnight somewhere with them.
You're conflating gay people with pedophiles. They are not one and the same.
Most pedophiles actually identify themselves as being heterosexual.
Id be more concerned about my kid spending time alone in the woods with religious fundamentalists.
Most pedophiles are gay, at least the ones who go after little boys are. Why take that chance?
On July 19 2012 03:59 ElMeanYo wrote: Most of you voting Yes on this one I'm willing to bet are not fathers with young boys in the Scouts. You don't want gay men anywhere near your kids let alone camping out overnight somewhere with them.
You're conflating gay people with pedophiles. They are not one and the same.
Most pedophiles actually identify themselves as being heterosexual.
Id be more concerned about my kid spending time alone in the woods with religious fundamentalists.
Most pedophiles are gay, at least the ones who go after little boys are. Why take that chance?
Because there's a chance your own kid is gay and you'd want him to be able to join the boyscouts too if he wanted to?
I'm fairly certain that organizations like this don't exactly have a succesful record in avoiding child molestation even while banning gays, so if that's your argument, why let your kid join in the first place.
On July 19 2012 03:59 ElMeanYo wrote: Most of you voting Yes on this one I'm willing to bet are not fathers with young boys in the Scouts. You don't want gay men anywhere near your kids let alone camping out overnight somewhere with them.
You're conflating gay people with pedophiles. They are not one and the same.
Most pedophiles actually identify themselves as being heterosexual.
Id be more concerned about my kid spending time alone in the woods with religious fundamentalists.
Most pedophiles are gay, at least the ones who go after little boys are. Why take that chance?
What kind of argument is this? How do you make the link from a gay man to a predatory pedophile? The two are completely unrelated.
On July 19 2012 03:59 ElMeanYo wrote: Most of you voting Yes on this one I'm willing to bet are not fathers with young boys in the Scouts. You don't want gay men anywhere near your kids let alone camping out overnight somewhere with them.
You're conflating gay people with pedophiles. They are not one and the same.
Most pedophiles actually identify themselves as being heterosexual.
Id be more concerned about my kid spending time alone in the woods with religious fundamentalists.
Most pedophiles are gay, at least the ones who go after little boys are. Why take that chance?
Actually openly gay men are less likely to pray on little boys, because pedophiles try to hide it rather than be open about it like most gay men. Gay!= pedophile
On July 19 2012 03:59 ElMeanYo wrote: Most of you voting Yes on this one I'm willing to bet are not fathers with young boys in the Scouts. You don't want gay men anywhere near your kids let alone camping out overnight somewhere with them.
You're conflating gay people with pedophiles. They are not one and the same.
Most pedophiles actually identify themselves as being heterosexual.
Id be more concerned about my kid spending time alone in the woods with religious fundamentalists.
Most pedophiles are gay, at least the ones who go after little boys are. Why take that chance?
1) This is not true. There is no known correlation between the two. 2) If a pedophile wanted to join the scouts and molest your children, he could simple claim that he's NOT gay. Banning gays does nothing to prevent this from happening.
This is so stupid. You can't ban homosexuals, you can only ban homosexual activity (which should be banned regardless?)
* How are you supposed to prove someone is gay? * Since you can't [really] prove one way or the other, you force a closeted DADT policy * Since you have [closeted] homosexuals in the organization anyway, the question needs to be re-framed
Is there any advantage to the organization or its community to force some members to hide who they are.
And the answer is: of course not. If you like someone's company, you like their company. That does not should not change upon finding out they like the same sex.
This is a non-issue. The policy needs to be inclusive of common sense.
On July 19 2012 04:14 ArcticRaven wrote: Well, following that logic.... Men and women shouldn't ever come close to one another, because you know. Welcome to Iran man.
Yeah this pretty much shatters the whole 'I don't want teh gayz near my kids' bullshit.
If you don't want gay men near your sons because in your eyes they are potential child molesters (if, for some stupid reason, you believe that gay men are much more likely to be paedophiles) then you don't want your wife, girlfriend, mother, sister or daughter anywhere near any males because they are all potential rapists. Why take that risk?
I was in boyscouts as a kid and around the age of 12-14 I was pretty homophobic (accurate use of the term instead of its catchall use now). If I had stayed it would have been a culture teaching me to exclude people for childish and arbitrary reasons.
On July 19 2012 03:59 ElMeanYo wrote: Most of you voting Yes on this one I'm willing to bet are not fathers with young boys in the Scouts. You don't want gay men anywhere near your kids let alone camping out overnight somewhere with them.
User was temp banned for this post.
Just going to say, i was a scout for 12 years, and my father (a boy scout leader himself) looked over my shoulder and called you a nasty name, and said that sexual preference has nothing to do with being a pedophile or not, and that he is much more concerned with if the leader is capable of dealing with emergency that can happen while camping out than the leaders sexual preference.
On July 19 2012 03:59 ElMeanYo wrote: Most of you voting Yes on this one I'm willing to bet are not fathers with young boys in the Scouts. You don't want gay men anywhere near your kids let alone camping out overnight somewhere with them.
You're conflating gay people with pedophiles. They are not one and the same.
Most pedophiles actually identify themselves as being heterosexual.
Id be more concerned about my kid spending time alone in the woods with religious fundamentalists.
Most pedophiles are gay, at least the ones who go after little boys are. Why take that chance?
From what I understand, pedophiles are into children regardless of their gender. Children are kind of androgenous before puberty, and that's how pedophiles like them. Therefore, "gay pedophiles" only makes sense if you're talking about people who are both attracted to adults of the same sex, AND pedophiles; also, the notion that most pedophiles are gay is ignorant at best or deliberate misinformation at worst, because pedophilia is not statistically more likely among homosexuals than it is among heterosexuals.
If your worry is about pedophiles and not wanting to take chances, then, just keep your children at home. Simply keeping them away from homosexuals doesn't make them any safer from pedophiles.
On July 19 2012 03:59 ElMeanYo wrote: Most of you voting Yes on this one I'm willing to bet are not fathers with young boys in the Scouts. You don't want gay men anywhere near your kids let alone camping out overnight somewhere with them.
User was temp banned for this post.
I have never been happier about a TL ban or reprimanding than I am right now :D
On July 19 2012 03:59 ElMeanYo wrote: Most of you voting Yes on this one I'm willing to bet are not fathers with young boys in the Scouts. You don't want gay men anywhere near your kids let alone camping out overnight somewhere with them.
parkvader98 453 points 7 hours ago I am a member of troop 12 and I had been going to Winton for four years, and each and every time, Tim was always our troops favorite counselor, I seems to me that it is no coincidence , as is supposedly was, I support the other counselor's decisions to leave, and i dearly hope that you find a new job. Thank you Tim, for the years of joy you have brought our troop.
Boy Scouts of America officials in California have fired an openly gay man from his job as a merit badge instructor, claiming that he failed to adhere to uniform requirements and standards for appropriate dress for the summer camp, Camp Winton, located in Amador County.
I suppose you can read it for yourself. If you truly think that this man is a heinous individual, corrupting youth, then go on believing it. But to me it comes across as honest and reaffirming that sexual orientation is no more indicative of morality than race or where you are from.
Just when I start to lose faith in Humanity I come here and read a few posts. And the ban for the guy who doesn't know the difference between being attracted to a MAN and a CHILD... good job tl mods!
Here's my 2 cents.
I was in the cubs and the scouts from when I could join to when I had to leave, over 10 years maybe even 15, I even thought about becoming a scout leader for a while.
On a recent trip home I went looking for lots of people I hadn't seen in years (I haven't been home for 5 years) and the guy across the road from me was my old scout master. Now this guy was AWESOME, he taught me so much about not only scouting but also life, a second father if you like. I have so many fond memories of camping trips, so much fun. I never knew it, but he was gay the whole time, living with his partner, the scouting movement never asked and he never told them, he quit scouting a few years back because of a back injury.
Obama is only now showing interest in joining the pro-same-sex marriage camp; basically, he flip-flopped.
As an Eagle Scout, I approve of their decision to uphold this stance on the issue. Homosexuality, like sex ed in general, is thought best taught by the parent(s), not the BSA.
They may be the most discriminating of the youth organizations, but they also seem to be the group that gets the most done. Boy Scouts may not "embrace diversity," but I've respected them the most, for reasons other than this. Every November, we have "Scouting for Food," where we collected donated canned goods and give them to those in need. Girl Scouts (which have succumbed to most societal pressures, sadly) have... cookies. '>_> Through the BSA, I've conquered high-ropes courses, rappelled down cliff faces, backpacked around New Mexico, even camped in a cave. All the former Girl Scouts I've talked to wish they could have done all that stuff, but instead, they were relegated to boring, forgettable junk.
TL;DR: BSA has standards, doesn't let culture push it around; wish other organizations would take a hint.
On July 30 2012 14:22 cLAN.Anax wrote: Obama is only now showing interest in joining the pro-same-sex marriage camp; basically, he flip-flopped.
As an Eagle Scout, I approve of their decision to uphold this stance on the issue. Homosexuality, like sex ed in general, is thought best taught by the parent(s), not the BSA.
They may be the most discriminating of the youth organizations, but they also seem to be the group that gets the most done. Boy Scouts may not "embrace diversity," but I've respected them the most, for reasons other than this. Every November, we have "Scouting for Food," where we collected donated canned goods and give them to those in need. Girl Scouts (which have succumbed to most societal pressures, sadly) have... cookies. '>_> Through the BSA, I've conquered high-ropes courses, rappelled down cliff faces, backpacked around New Mexico, even camped in a cave. All the former Girl Scouts I've talked to wish they could have done all that stuff, but instead, they were relegated to boring, forgettable junk.
TL;DR: BSA has standards, doesn't let culture push it around; wish other organizations would take a hint.
As long as they don't abuse or violate anyone, it's fine by me,
On July 30 2012 14:22 cLAN.Anax wrote: Obama is only now showing interest in joining the pro-same-sex marriage camp; basically, he flip-flopped.
As an Eagle Scout, I approve of their decision to uphold this stance on the issue. Homosexuality, like sex ed in general, is thought best taught by the parent(s), not the BSA.
They may be the most discriminating of the youth organizations, but they also seem to be the group that gets the most done. Boy Scouts may not "embrace diversity," but I've respected them the most, for reasons other than this. Every November, we have "Scouting for Food," where we collected donated canned goods and give them to those in need. Girl Scouts (which have succumbed to most societal pressures, sadly) have... cookies. '>_> Through the BSA, I've conquered high-ropes courses, rappelled down cliff faces, backpacked around New Mexico, even camped in a cave. All the former Girl Scouts I've talked to wish they could have done all that stuff, but instead, they were relegated to boring, forgettable junk.
TL;DR: BSA has standards, doesn't let culture push it around; wish other organizations would take a hint.
WTF does this have anything to do with gay people. Are gays incapable of rope climbing? Does liking dick mean you can't rappel down cliff faces and all that "manly" shit? Come on, this is ridiculous.
And don't you talk ill of girl scout cookies, they're fucking delicious.
On July 30 2012 14:22 cLAN.Anax wrote: Obama is only now showing interest in joining the pro-same-sex marriage camp; basically, he flip-flopped.
As an Eagle Scout, I approve of their decision to uphold this stance on the issue. Homosexuality, like sex ed in general, is thought best taught by the parent(s), not the BSA.
They may be the most discriminating of the youth organizations, but they also seem to be the group that gets the most done. Boy Scouts may not "embrace diversity," but I've respected them the most, for reasons other than this. Every November, we have "Scouting for Food," where we collected donated canned goods and give them to those in need. Girl Scouts (which have succumbed to most societal pressures, sadly) have... cookies. '>_> Through the BSA, I've conquered high-ropes courses, rappelled down cliff faces, backpacked around New Mexico, even camped in a cave. All the former Girl Scouts I've talked to wish they could have done all that stuff, but instead, they were relegated to boring, forgettable junk.
TL;DR: BSA has standards, doesn't let culture push it around; wish other organizations would take a hint.
Sorry. You have a bad case of complete disconnection from reality, gay people don't walk up to you and say "Hi I'm gay, please allow me to explain how anal sex works", in the same way that when you meet a straight person they don't say "Hi I'm a dude and I love having sex with ladies, you see to have sex with a woman you stick your penis in their vagina. Oh and the name is david by the way" I say this because it actually sounds like you've never met a gay person before.
-edit
On July 30 2012 14:27 GT350 wrote: As long as they don't abuse or violate anyone, it's fine by me,
Also this thought is so throw away it actually makes me mad, gay people are not cats who if your not careful will ruin your best sofa, they are real arse individuals who like everyone else deemed "normal" are not okay with the rape and abuse of children. Did it really need clarification? "I'm okay with pakistanis working as doctors as long as they don't abuse or violate anyone" Said no one ever. (I must have missed the campaign to get known, active sex offenders to work in BSA)
On July 30 2012 14:22 cLAN.Anax wrote: Obama is only now showing interest in joining the pro-same-sex marriage camp; basically, he flip-flopped.
As an Eagle Scout, I approve of their decision to uphold this stance on the issue. Homosexuality, like sex ed in general, is thought best taught by the parent(s), not the BSA.
They may be the most discriminating of the youth organizations, but they also seem to be the group that gets the most done. Boy Scouts may not "embrace diversity," but I've respected them the most, for reasons other than this. Every November, we have "Scouting for Food," where we collected donated canned goods and give them to those in need. Girl Scouts (which have succumbed to most societal pressures, sadly) have... cookies. '>_> Through the BSA, I've conquered high-ropes courses, rappelled down cliff faces, backpacked around New Mexico, even camped in a cave. All the former Girl Scouts I've talked to wish they could have done all that stuff, but instead, they were relegated to boring, forgettable junk.
TL;DR: BSA has standards, doesn't let culture push it around; wish other organizations would take a hint.
BSA receives federal recognition. Either change or give up the support, discrimination should not be tolerated at a federal level.
I think it's great that they can vote for it now (step in right direction) and those who have pulled support should continue to do so until this outdated policy is removed.
On July 30 2012 14:22 cLAN.Anax wrote: Obama is only now showing interest in joining the pro-same-sex marriage camp; basically, he flip-flopped.
As an Eagle Scout, I approve of their decision to uphold this stance on the issue. Homosexuality, like sex ed in general, is thought best taught by the parent(s), not the BSA.
They may be the most discriminating of the youth organizations, but they also seem to be the group that gets the most done. Boy Scouts may not "embrace diversity," but I've respected them the most, for reasons other than this. Every November, we have "Scouting for Food," where we collected donated canned goods and give them to those in need. Girl Scouts (which have succumbed to most societal pressures, sadly) have... cookies. '>_> Through the BSA, I've conquered high-ropes courses, rappelled down cliff faces, backpacked around New Mexico, even camped in a cave. All the former Girl Scouts I've talked to wish they could have done all that stuff, but instead, they were relegated to boring, forgettable junk.
TL;DR: BSA has standards, doesn't let culture push it around; wish other organizations would take a hint.
WTF does this have anything to do with gay people. Are gays incapable of rope climbing? Does liking dick mean you can't rappel down cliff faces and all that "manly" shit? Come on, this is ridiculous.
And don't you talk ill of girl scout cookies, they're fucking delicious.
LOL, I agree. I'm particular towards the Samoas and Tagalongs, myself. X-D My point was that that seems to be the biggest thing Girl Scouts do, and it's merely a fundraiser, right? Boy Scouts sell popcorn as their fundraiser, but they also do other notable activities, such as Scouting for Food as I mentioned earlier. Not to mention the millions of Eagle Projects that have been completed over the years, exemplifying Scouts showing service to their community.
On July 30 2012 14:22 cLAN.Anax wrote: Obama is only now showing interest in joining the pro-same-sex marriage camp; basically, he flip-flopped.
As an Eagle Scout, I approve of their decision to uphold this stance on the issue. Homosexuality, like sex ed in general, is thought best taught by the parent(s), not the BSA.
They may be the most discriminating of the youth organizations, but they also seem to be the group that gets the most done. Boy Scouts may not "embrace diversity," but I've respected them the most, for reasons other than this. Every November, we have "Scouting for Food," where we collected donated canned goods and give them to those in need. Girl Scouts (which have succumbed to most societal pressures, sadly) have... cookies. '>_> Through the BSA, I've conquered high-ropes courses, rappelled down cliff faces, backpacked around New Mexico, even camped in a cave. All the former Girl Scouts I've talked to wish they could have done all that stuff, but instead, they were relegated to boring, forgettable junk.
TL;DR: BSA has standards, doesn't let culture push it around; wish other organizations would take a hint.
BSA receives federal recognition and funding. Either change or give up the support, discrimination should not be tolerated at a federal level.
While I think it's great that they can vote for it now (step in right direction), I still think they should mandate it.
*sigh* Of course the public funding bothers me, lol. Would rather see it completely privatized. (you'll see a bunch more 10-year-olds knocking on your door asking you to buy popcorn, though, haha! X-D)
On July 30 2012 14:22 cLAN.Anax wrote: Obama is only now showing interest in joining the pro-same-sex marriage camp; basically, he flip-flopped.
As an Eagle Scout, I approve of their decision to uphold this stance on the issue. Homosexuality, like sex ed in general, is thought best taught by the parent(s), not the BSA.
They may be the most discriminating of the youth organizations, but they also seem to be the group that gets the most done. Boy Scouts may not "embrace diversity," but I've respected them the most, for reasons other than this. Every November, we have "Scouting for Food," where we collected donated canned goods and give them to those in need. Girl Scouts (which have succumbed to most societal pressures, sadly) have... cookies. '>_> Through the BSA, I've conquered high-ropes courses, rappelled down cliff faces, backpacked around New Mexico, even camped in a cave. All the former Girl Scouts I've talked to wish they could have done all that stuff, but instead, they were relegated to boring, forgettable junk.
TL;DR: BSA has standards, doesn't let culture push it around; wish other organizations would take a hint.
Sorry. You have a bad case of complete disconnection from reality, gay people don't walk up to you and say "Hi I'm gay, please allow me to explain how anal sex works", in the same way that when you meet a straight person they don't say "Hi I'm a dude and I love having sex with ladies, you see to have sex with a woman you stick your penis in their vagina. Oh and the name is david by the way" I say this because it actually sounds like you've never met a gay person before.
When I was a younger Boy Scout, we also didn't mention politics or even differing religions for that matter, because we knew that we each had our separate opinions on the matter and knew to let the parents talk to thier kids about those issues. BSA expects Mom and Dad to explain how sex works and what differing political opinions and religious beliefs are and what homosexuality is. Someone who is openly expressive of their sexuality, in my opinion, should not be tolerated, hetero- or homosexual; Boy Scouts isn't the place for it. There is a double standard on this, as I heard far more than my fair share of heterosexuality (boys will be boys...), but I disapprove of it just as ardently. Basically, BSA doesn't want to deal with any of it, because they believe it's not their place. To be honest, a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is acceptable here in my opinion, for any sexual orientation. I know it's not popular, but those are family issues (homosexuality, teenage promiscuity, etc.), and they should remain as such if you ask me.
On July 30 2012 14:22 cLAN.Anax wrote: Obama is only now showing interest in joining the pro-same-sex marriage camp; basically, he flip-flopped.
As an Eagle Scout, I approve of their decision to uphold this stance on the issue. Homosexuality, like sex ed in general, is thought best taught by the parent(s), not the BSA.
They may be the most discriminating of the youth organizations, but they also seem to be the group that gets the most done. Boy Scouts may not "embrace diversity," but I've respected them the most, for reasons other than this. Every November, we have "Scouting for Food," where we collected donated canned goods and give them to those in need. Girl Scouts (which have succumbed to most societal pressures, sadly) have... cookies. '>_> Through the BSA, I've conquered high-ropes courses, rappelled down cliff faces, backpacked around New Mexico, even camped in a cave. All the former Girl Scouts I've talked to wish they could have done all that stuff, but instead, they were relegated to boring, forgettable junk.
TL;DR: BSA has standards, doesn't let culture push it around; wish other organizations would take a hint.
Sorry. You have a bad case of complete disconnection from reality, gay people don't walk up to you and say "Hi I'm gay, please allow me to explain how anal sex works", in the same way that when you meet a straight person they don't say "Hi I'm a dude and I love having sex with ladies, you see to have sex with a woman you stick your penis in their vagina. Oh and the name is david by the way" I say this because it actually sounds like you've never met a gay person before.
When I was a younger Boy Scout, we also didn't mention politics or even differing religions for that matter, because we knew that we each had our separate opinions on the matter and knew to let the parents talk to thier kids about those issues. BSA expects Mom and Dad to explain how sex works and what differing political opinions and religious beliefs are and what homosexuality is. Someone who is openly expressive of their sexuality, in my opinion, should not be tolerated, hetero- or homosexual; Boy Scouts isn't the place for it. There is a double standard on this, as I heard far more than my fair share of heterosexuality (boys will be boys...), but I disapprove of it just as ardently. Basically, BSA doesn't want to deal with any of it, because they believe it's not their place. To be honest, a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is acceptable here in my opinion, for any sexual orientation. I know it's not popular, but those are family issues (homosexuality, teenage promiscuity, etc.), and they should remain as such if you ask me.
Don't ask don't tell has another name, its called "its okay to be straight but it isn't okay to be gay" Your living in a dream world, people will have their sexuality, and too me its totally lunatic that someone would lose their position for mentioning that they have a boyfriend and they are also male. Its repressive and damaging and so backwards it makes me cackle with laughter that rules and the people that subscribe to them still exist. And then a little sad. Americas stance on anything that isn't white and hertero-normative is shameful.
On July 30 2012 14:22 cLAN.Anax wrote: Obama is only now showing interest in joining the pro-same-sex marriage camp; basically, he flip-flopped.
As an Eagle Scout, I approve of their decision to uphold this stance on the issue. Homosexuality, like sex ed in general, is thought best taught by the parent(s), not the BSA.
They may be the most discriminating of the youth organizations, but they also seem to be the group that gets the most done. Boy Scouts may not "embrace diversity," but I've respected them the most, for reasons other than this. Every November, we have "Scouting for Food," where we collected donated canned goods and give them to those in need. Girl Scouts (which have succumbed to most societal pressures, sadly) have... cookies. '>_> Through the BSA, I've conquered high-ropes courses, rappelled down cliff faces, backpacked around New Mexico, even camped in a cave. All the former Girl Scouts I've talked to wish they could have done all that stuff, but instead, they were relegated to boring, forgettable junk.
TL;DR: BSA has standards, doesn't let culture push it around; wish other organizations would take a hint.
Sorry. You have a bad case of complete disconnection from reality, gay people don't walk up to you and say "Hi I'm gay, please allow me to explain how anal sex works", in the same way that when you meet a straight person they don't say "Hi I'm a dude and I love having sex with ladies, you see to have sex with a woman you stick your penis in their vagina. Oh and the name is david by the way" I say this because it actually sounds like you've never met a gay person before.
When I was a younger Boy Scout, we also didn't mention politics or even differing religions for that matter, because we knew that we each had our separate opinions on the matter and knew to let the parents talk to thier kids about those issues. BSA expects Mom and Dad to explain how sex works and what differing political opinions and religious beliefs are and what homosexuality is. Someone who is openly expressive of their sexuality, in my opinion, should not be tolerated, hetero- or homosexual; Boy Scouts isn't the place for it. There is a double standard on this, as I heard far more than my fair share of heterosexuality (boys will be boys...), but I disapprove of it just as ardently. Basically, BSA doesn't want to deal with any of it, because they believe it's not their place. To be honest, a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is acceptable here in my opinion, for any sexual orientation. I know it's not popular, but those are family issues (homosexuality, teenage promiscuity, etc.), and they should remain as such if you ask me.
Don't ask don't tell has another name, its called "its okay to be straight but it isn't okay to be gay" Your living in a dream world, people will have their sexuality, and too me its totally lunatic that someone would lose their position for mentioning that they have a boyfriend and they are also male. Its repressive and damaging and so backwards it makes me cackle with laughter that rules and the people that subscribe to them still exist. And then a little sad. Americas stance on anything that isn't white and hertero-normative is shameful.
BSA leaders frown upon Scouts bringing their girlfriends to Visit Night at Summer Camp too, if it makes you feel any better.
I really don't mind if a person's gay. Or straight. Or what-heck-the-frick-ever. It's not that we live in some "dream world" and say they don't exist. But a Boy Scout meeting or campout is not the place to bring those topics up, with other members of the Troop; the responsibility for those subjects is given solely to the parent(s) or guardian(s).
I tell you these things because it actually sounds as though you were never a Boy Scout or attended a BSA function before.... :-)
On July 30 2012 14:22 cLAN.Anax wrote: Obama is only now showing interest in joining the pro-same-sex marriage camp; basically, he flip-flopped.
As an Eagle Scout, I approve of their decision to uphold this stance on the issue. Homosexuality, like sex ed in general, is thought best taught by the parent(s), not the BSA.
They may be the most discriminating of the youth organizations, but they also seem to be the group that gets the most done. Boy Scouts may not "embrace diversity," but I've respected them the most, for reasons other than this. Every November, we have "Scouting for Food," where we collected donated canned goods and give them to those in need. Girl Scouts (which have succumbed to most societal pressures, sadly) have... cookies. '>_> Through the BSA, I've conquered high-ropes courses, rappelled down cliff faces, backpacked around New Mexico, even camped in a cave. All the former Girl Scouts I've talked to wish they could have done all that stuff, but instead, they were relegated to boring, forgettable junk.
TL;DR: BSA has standards, doesn't let culture push it around; wish other organizations would take a hint.
Sorry. You have a bad case of complete disconnection from reality, gay people don't walk up to you and say "Hi I'm gay, please allow me to explain how anal sex works", in the same way that when you meet a straight person they don't say "Hi I'm a dude and I love having sex with ladies, you see to have sex with a woman you stick your penis in their vagina. Oh and the name is david by the way" I say this because it actually sounds like you've never met a gay person before.
When I was a younger Boy Scout, we also didn't mention politics or even differing religions for that matter, because we knew that we each had our separate opinions on the matter and knew to let the parents talk to thier kids about those issues. BSA expects Mom and Dad to explain how sex works and what differing political opinions and religious beliefs are and what homosexuality is. Someone who is openly expressive of their sexuality, in my opinion, should not be tolerated, hetero- or homosexual; Boy Scouts isn't the place for it. There is a double standard on this, as I heard far more than my fair share of heterosexuality (boys will be boys...), but I disapprove of it just as ardently. Basically, BSA doesn't want to deal with any of it, because they believe it's not their place. To be honest, a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is acceptable here in my opinion, for any sexual orientation. I know it's not popular, but those are family issues (homosexuality, teenage promiscuity, etc.), and they should remain as such if you ask me.
Don't ask don't tell has another name, its called "its okay to be straight but it isn't okay to be gay" Your living in a dream world, people will have their sexuality, and too me its totally lunatic that someone would lose their position for mentioning that they have a boyfriend and they are also male. Its repressive and damaging and so backwards it makes me cackle with laughter that rules and the people that subscribe to them still exist. And then a little sad. Americas stance on anything that isn't white and hertero-normative is shameful.
BSA leaders frown upon Scouts bringing their girlfriends to Visit Night at Summer Camp too, if it makes you feel any better.
I really don't mind if a person's gay. Or straight. Or what-heck-the-frick-ever. It's not that we live in some "dream world" and say they don't exist. But a Boy Scout meeting or campout is not the place to bring those topics up, with other members of the Troop; the responsibility for those subjects is given solely to the parent(s) or guardian(s).
I tell you these things because it actually sounds as though you were never a Boy Scout or attended a BSA function before.... :-)
Of course I've never been to a BSA function before. I'm not American. All I want is for people that are boy scouts to not be fired for being gay, and not having to hide that they are attracted to the same sex. Someone clearly minds, because the BSA stigmatises being gay, the BSA don't have a rule on their books saying "To be a boy scout you need not to be straight" or perhaps even more workable "Only aromantic Asexuals are allowed to be leaders and members of boy scouts of America" The day a scout leader get kicked from a position for being straight, for having the gal to admitting that they have a girlfriend, or in some other way is revealed that they prefer the company of ladies is the day that I will eat my own feet. I think my ability to walk will be safe for some time to come.
On July 30 2012 14:22 cLAN.Anax wrote: Obama is only now showing interest in joining the pro-same-sex marriage camp; basically, he flip-flopped.
As an Eagle Scout, I approve of their decision to uphold this stance on the issue. Homosexuality, like sex ed in general, is thought best taught by the parent(s), not the BSA.
They may be the most discriminating of the youth organizations, but they also seem to be the group that gets the most done. Boy Scouts may not "embrace diversity," but I've respected them the most, for reasons other than this. Every November, we have "Scouting for Food," where we collected donated canned goods and give them to those in need. Girl Scouts (which have succumbed to most societal pressures, sadly) have... cookies. '>_> Through the BSA, I've conquered high-ropes courses, rappelled down cliff faces, backpacked around New Mexico, even camped in a cave. All the former Girl Scouts I've talked to wish they could have done all that stuff, but instead, they were relegated to boring, forgettable junk.
TL;DR: BSA has standards, doesn't let culture push it around; wish other organizations would take a hint.
Sorry. You have a bad case of complete disconnection from reality, gay people don't walk up to you and say "Hi I'm gay, please allow me to explain how anal sex works", in the same way that when you meet a straight person they don't say "Hi I'm a dude and I love having sex with ladies, you see to have sex with a woman you stick your penis in their vagina. Oh and the name is david by the way" I say this because it actually sounds like you've never met a gay person before.
When I was a younger Boy Scout, we also didn't mention politics or even differing religions for that matter, because we knew that we each had our separate opinions on the matter and knew to let the parents talk to thier kids about those issues. BSA expects Mom and Dad to explain how sex works and what differing political opinions and religious beliefs are and what homosexuality is. Someone who is openly expressive of their sexuality, in my opinion, should not be tolerated, hetero- or homosexual; Boy Scouts isn't the place for it. There is a double standard on this, as I heard far more than my fair share of heterosexuality (boys will be boys...), but I disapprove of it just as ardently. Basically, BSA doesn't want to deal with any of it, because they believe it's not their place. To be honest, a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is acceptable here in my opinion, for any sexual orientation. I know it's not popular, but those are family issues (homosexuality, teenage promiscuity, etc.), and they should remain as such if you ask me.
Don't ask don't tell has another name, its called "its okay to be straight but it isn't okay to be gay" Your living in a dream world, people will have their sexuality, and too me its totally lunatic that someone would lose their position for mentioning that they have a boyfriend and they are also male. Its repressive and damaging and so backwards it makes me cackle with laughter that rules and the people that subscribe to them still exist. And then a little sad. Americas stance on anything that isn't white and hertero-normative is shameful.
BSA leaders frown upon Scouts bringing their girlfriends to Visit Night at Summer Camp too, if it makes you feel any better.
I really don't mind if a person's gay. Or straight. Or what-heck-the-frick-ever. It's not that we live in some "dream world" and say they don't exist. But a Boy Scout meeting or campout is not the place to bring those topics up, with other members of the Troop; the responsibility for those subjects is given solely to the parent(s) or guardian(s).
I tell you these things because it actually sounds as though you were never a Boy Scout or attended a BSA function before.... :-)
Of course I've never been to a BSA function before. I'm not American. All I want is for people that are boy scouts to not be fired for being gay, and not having to hide that they are attracted to the same sex. Someone clearly minds, because the BSA stigmatises being gay, the BSA don't have a rule on their books saying "To be a boy scout you need not to be straight" or perhaps even more workable "Only aromantic Asexuals are allowed to be leaders and members of boy scouts of America" The day a scout leader get kicked from a position for being straight, for having the gal to admitting that they have a girlfriend, or in some other way is revealed that they prefer the company of ladies is the day that I will eat my own feet. I think my ability to walk will be safe for some time to come.
Sorry, a Boy Scout function.
Look, the Boy Scouts want to promote the health and growth of boys becoming trustworthy, loyal, helpful,... etc., etc., men in a fun and safe environment. BSA doesn't want to put up with the drama that ensues from these issues; honestly, you can do anything that a Scout does without having to mention to anyone your sexual orientation, no matter what it is. If you have to bring that up, you're with the wrong group. You go there to camp and climb and fish and kayak and mature and etc., not sit around and talk about the initimate details of your recent sexual expereinces or which set of plumbing you prefer on a person.
On July 30 2012 14:22 cLAN.Anax wrote: Obama is only now showing interest in joining the pro-same-sex marriage camp; basically, he flip-flopped.
As an Eagle Scout, I approve of their decision to uphold this stance on the issue. Homosexuality, like sex ed in general, is thought best taught by the parent(s), not the BSA.
They may be the most discriminating of the youth organizations, but they also seem to be the group that gets the most done. Boy Scouts may not "embrace diversity," but I've respected them the most, for reasons other than this. Every November, we have "Scouting for Food," where we collected donated canned goods and give them to those in need. Girl Scouts (which have succumbed to most societal pressures, sadly) have... cookies. '>_> Through the BSA, I've conquered high-ropes courses, rappelled down cliff faces, backpacked around New Mexico, even camped in a cave. All the former Girl Scouts I've talked to wish they could have done all that stuff, but instead, they were relegated to boring, forgettable junk.
TL;DR: BSA has standards, doesn't let culture push it around; wish other organizations would take a hint.
You know about the difference between a correlation and a cause right?
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...
Gay's aren't all feminine. Sure some are but there are plenty of masculine gays who you might not even recognize as gay at first sight.
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...
Gay's aren't all feminine. Sure some are but there are plenty of masculine gays who you might not even recognize as gay at first sight.
yeah some people have the wrong image of gay.. where they talk/walk like a glamour girl.. while they forget that there is gay navy seal soldiers serving/have served.. i have a feeling they don't wear makeup and flashy clothes.. and i bet they could teach the BSA something about survival in the forest
On July 30 2012 14:22 cLAN.Anax wrote: Obama is only now showing interest in joining the pro-same-sex marriage camp; basically, he flip-flopped.
As an Eagle Scout, I approve of their decision to uphold this stance on the issue. Homosexuality, like sex ed in general, is thought best taught by the parent(s), not the BSA.
They may be the most discriminating of the youth organizations, but they also seem to be the group that gets the most done. Boy Scouts may not "embrace diversity," but I've respected them the most, for reasons other than this. Every November, we have "Scouting for Food," where we collected donated canned goods and give them to those in need. Girl Scouts (which have succumbed to most societal pressures, sadly) have... cookies. '>_> Through the BSA, I've conquered high-ropes courses, rappelled down cliff faces, backpacked around New Mexico, even camped in a cave. All the former Girl Scouts I've talked to wish they could have done all that stuff, but instead, they were relegated to boring, forgettable junk.
TL;DR: BSA has standards, doesn't let culture push it around; wish other organizations would take a hint.
You know about the difference between a correlation and a cause right?
EDIT: Removed an unnecessary bit.
Right, I know. It's merely my own experiences and opinion on the matter. My point was that the BSA upholds some unpopular standards, but it sticks to them rigidly anyways. I see it as overall moral discipline, and other organizations, to my knowledge, are not quite so consistent. That was all.
Shame no one ever tlkas about the rights of non Homosexuals.
I mean what if you want to be around like minded people? You have no safty net.
We don't allow men into ladys bathrooms, but that's ok discriminations. But to ban gays isn't ok discimination?
I support people who stand up for what htey beleive, reguardless of side. I do not support people who try force their beliefs down the throats of others. the BS has always been hetero. If you really want to be a gay scout why odn't you make your own group- I won't stop you.
I really see this as aggression on the part of homosexuals, and it really rubs me the wrong way.
On July 30 2012 14:22 cLAN.Anax wrote: Obama is only now showing interest in joining the pro-same-sex marriage camp; basically, he flip-flopped.
As an Eagle Scout, I approve of their decision to uphold this stance on the issue. Homosexuality, like sex ed in general, is thought best taught by the parent(s), not the BSA.
They may be the most discriminating of the youth organizations, but they also seem to be the group that gets the most done. Boy Scouts may not "embrace diversity," but I've respected them the most, for reasons other than this. Every November, we have "Scouting for Food," where we collected donated canned goods and give them to those in need. Girl Scouts (which have succumbed to most societal pressures, sadly) have... cookies. '>_> Through the BSA, I've conquered high-ropes courses, rappelled down cliff faces, backpacked around New Mexico, even camped in a cave. All the former Girl Scouts I've talked to wish they could have done all that stuff, but instead, they were relegated to boring, forgettable junk.
TL;DR: BSA has standards, doesn't let culture push it around; wish other organizations would take a hint.
"Standards" is a pretty fucked up way to euphemise discrimination. What if I justified racial discrimination to you by saying that we have "standards." You do understand that people who have been with the scouts for years were recently fired for no other reason other than the BSA wants to double down on the issue.
And shut up about the girl scouts. Capitalism is very much part of America. Selling delicious shit with awesome advertising and social manipulation by adorable little girls is way more American than anything the boy scouts do.
On July 30 2012 23:36 SayGen wrote: Shame no one ever tlkas about the rights of non Homosexuals.
I mean what if you want to be around like minded people? You have no safty net.
We don't allow men into ladys bathrooms, but that's ok discriminations. But to ban gays isn't ok discimination?
I support people who stand up for what htey beleive, reguardless of side. I do not support people who try force their beliefs down the throats of others. the BS has always been hetero. If you really want to be a gay scout why odn't you make your own group- I won't stop you.
I really see this as aggression on the part of homosexuals, and it really rubs me the wrong way.
How do heterosexuals lose any rights by being around homosexuals? I suppose you also hate the civil rights movement for black rights cos they were forcing their beliefs down the throats of others?
It's utterly ludicrous that you see this as aggression from homosexuals because they want to be accepted. Like seriously what the fuck?
On July 30 2012 23:36 SayGen wrote: Shame no one ever tlkas about the rights of non Homosexuals.
I mean what if you want to be around like minded people? You have no safty net.
We don't allow men into ladys bathrooms, but that's ok discriminations. But to ban gays isn't ok discimination?
I support people who stand up for what htey beleive, reguardless of side. I do not support people who try force their beliefs down the throats of others. the BS has always been hetero. If you really want to be a gay scout why odn't you make your own group- I won't stop you.
I really see this as aggression on the part of homosexuals, and it really rubs me the wrong way.
How do heterosexuals lose any rights by being around homosexuals? I suppose you also hate the civil rights movement for black rights cos they were forcing their beliefs down the throats of others?
It's utterly ludicrous that you see this as aggression from homosexuals because they want to be accepted. Like seriously what the fuck?
I realize u like many see things from one perspective. That is normal and I'm not insulting you. I have a bad habbit of seeing thigns from left field, right field, the skybox, and the dugout.
Did you think maybe people don't want to accept them becuase they don't want to accept them? The Black Panthers don't like me. I'm white. Do I want to go to a Black PAnther meeting and make them accept me? No.
They can hate me all they want. It's kool.
If I want to be in a club with people jsut like me. I should be able to. It's not about keeping gays or anyone DOWN. It's about being allowed to form your own groups.
that's why I gave you the ridiculus example of not allowing males into female bathrooms. THAT IS SEXIST!!!!!
On July 30 2012 23:36 SayGen wrote: Shame no one ever tlkas about the rights of non Homosexuals.
I mean what if you want to be around like minded people? You have no safty net.
We don't allow men into ladys bathrooms, but that's ok discriminations. But to ban gays isn't ok discimination?
I support people who stand up for what htey beleive, reguardless of side. I do not support people who try force their beliefs down the throats of others. the BS has always been hetero. If you really want to be a gay scout why odn't you make your own group- I won't stop you.
I really see this as aggression on the part of homosexuals, and it really rubs me the wrong way.
How do heterosexuals lose any rights by being around homosexuals? I suppose you also hate the civil rights movement for black rights cos they were forcing their beliefs down the throats of others?
It's utterly ludicrous that you see this as aggression from homosexuals because they want to be accepted. Like seriously what the fuck?
I realize u like many see things from one perspective. That is normal and I'm not insulting you. I have a bad habbit of seeing thigns from left field, right field, the skybox, and the dugout.
Did you think maybe people don't want to accept them becuase they don't want to accept them? The Black Panthers don't like me. I'm white. Do I want to go to a Black PAnther meeting and make them accept me? No.
They can hate me all they want. It's kool.
If I want to be in a club with people jsut like me. I should be able to. It's not about keeping gays or anyone DOWN. It's about being allowed to form your own groups.
that's why I gave you the ridiculus example of not allowing males into female bathrooms. THAT IS SEXIST!!!!!
But it's ok. or is it?
And pray tell would you be comfortable if the Black Panthers were at least partially state funded?
also can you please clean up your writing because it's really hard at times to decipher what you're trying to say.
On July 30 2012 14:22 cLAN.Anax wrote: Obama is only now showing interest in joining the pro-same-sex marriage camp; basically, he flip-flopped.
As an Eagle Scout, I approve of their decision to uphold this stance on the issue. Homosexuality, like sex ed in general, is thought best taught by the parent(s), not the BSA.
They may be the most discriminating of the youth organizations, but they also seem to be the group that gets the most done. Boy Scouts may not "embrace diversity," but I've respected them the most, for reasons other than this. Every November, we have "Scouting for Food," where we collected donated canned goods and give them to those in need. Girl Scouts (which have succumbed to most societal pressures, sadly) have... cookies. '>_> Through the BSA, I've conquered high-ropes courses, rappelled down cliff faces, backpacked around New Mexico, even camped in a cave. All the former Girl Scouts I've talked to wish they could have done all that stuff, but instead, they were relegated to boring, forgettable junk.
TL;DR: BSA has standards, doesn't let culture push it around; wish other organizations would take a hint.
Sorry. You have a bad case of complete disconnection from reality, gay people don't walk up to you and say "Hi I'm gay, please allow me to explain how anal sex works", in the same way that when you meet a straight person they don't say "Hi I'm a dude and I love having sex with ladies, you see to have sex with a woman you stick your penis in their vagina. Oh and the name is david by the way" I say this because it actually sounds like you've never met a gay person before.
When I was a younger Boy Scout, we also didn't mention politics or even differing religions for that matter, because we knew that we each had our separate opinions on the matter and knew to let the parents talk to thier kids about those issues. BSA expects Mom and Dad to explain how sex works and what differing political opinions and religious beliefs are and what homosexuality is. Someone who is openly expressive of their sexuality, in my opinion, should not be tolerated, hetero- or homosexual; Boy Scouts isn't the place for it. There is a double standard on this, as I heard far more than my fair share of heterosexuality (boys will be boys...), but I disapprove of it just as ardently. Basically, BSA doesn't want to deal with any of it, because they believe it's not their place. To be honest, a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is acceptable here in my opinion, for any sexual orientation. I know it's not popular, but those are family issues (homosexuality, teenage promiscuity, etc.), and they should remain as such if you ask me.
Don't ask don't tell has another name, its called "its okay to be straight but it isn't okay to be gay" Your living in a dream world, people will have their sexuality, and too me its totally lunatic that someone would lose their position for mentioning that they have a boyfriend and they are also male. Its repressive and damaging and so backwards it makes me cackle with laughter that rules and the people that subscribe to them still exist. And then a little sad. Americas stance on anything that isn't white and hertero-normative is shameful.
BSA leaders frown upon Scouts bringing their girlfriends to Visit Night at Summer Camp too, if it makes you feel any better.
I really don't mind if a person's gay. Or straight. Or what-heck-the-frick-ever. It's not that we live in some "dream world" and say they don't exist. But a Boy Scout meeting or campout is not the place to bring those topics up, with other members of the Troop; the responsibility for those subjects is given solely to the parent(s) or guardian(s).
I tell you these things because it actually sounds as though you were never a Boy Scout or attended a BSA function before.... :-)
Of course I've never been to a BSA function before. I'm not American. All I want is for people that are boy scouts to not be fired for being gay, and not having to hide that they are attracted to the same sex. Someone clearly minds, because the BSA stigmatises being gay, the BSA don't have a rule on their books saying "To be a boy scout you need not to be straight" or perhaps even more workable "Only aromantic Asexuals are allowed to be leaders and members of boy scouts of America" The day a scout leader get kicked from a position for being straight, for having the gal to admitting that they have a girlfriend, or in some other way is revealed that they prefer the company of ladies is the day that I will eat my own feet. I think my ability to walk will be safe for some time to come.
Sorry, a Boy Scout function.
Look, the Boy Scouts want to promote the health and growth of boys becoming trustworthy, loyal, helpful,... etc., etc., men in a fun and safe environment. BSA doesn't want to put up with the drama that ensues from these issues; honestly, you can do anything that a Scout does without having to mention to anyone your sexual orientation, no matter what it is. If you have to bring that up, you're with the wrong group. You go there to camp and climb and fish and kayak and mature and etc., not sit around and talk about the initimate details of your recent sexual expereinces or which set of plumbing you prefer on a person.
So you are telling me that you never once referenced your fondness for women into boyscouts? lol. Are you serious? You are such a hypocrit.
On July 30 2012 23:36 SayGen wrote: Shame no one ever tlkas about the rights of non Homosexuals.
I mean what if you want to be around like minded people? You have no safty net.
We don't allow men into ladys bathrooms, but that's ok discriminations. But to ban gays isn't ok discimination?
I support people who stand up for what htey beleive, reguardless of side. I do not support people who try force their beliefs down the throats of others. the BS has always been hetero. If you really want to be a gay scout why odn't you make your own group- I won't stop you.
I really see this as aggression on the part of homosexuals, and it really rubs me the wrong way.
How do heterosexuals lose any rights by being around homosexuals? I suppose you also hate the civil rights movement for black rights cos they were forcing their beliefs down the throats of others?
It's utterly ludicrous that you see this as aggression from homosexuals because they want to be accepted. Like seriously what the fuck?
I realize u like many see things from one perspective. That is normal and I'm not insulting you. I have a bad habbit of seeing thigns from left field, right field, the skybox, and the dugout.
Did you think maybe people don't want to accept them becuase they don't want to accept them? The Black Panthers don't like me. I'm white. Do I want to go to a Black PAnther meeting and make them accept me? No.
They can hate me all they want. It's kool.
If I want to be in a club with people jsut like me. I should be able to. It's not about keeping gays or anyone DOWN. It's about being allowed to form your own groups.
that's why I gave you the ridiculus example of not allowing males into female bathrooms. THAT IS SEXIST!!!!!
But it's ok. or is it?
Its funny because you act like the outside is fighting against the ban inside the boyscouts. This issue came up because BOYSCOUTS wanted to get rid of them ban. You act like the scouts are completely solid on this issue when that is not eve close to being true. Many boyscouts do like gays and want to be around them.
On July 31 2012 00:21 DoubleReed wrote: The BSA gets federal funding to use a lot space and equipment. Federal funding should not be used to discriminate.
And there is no equivalence with male/female bathrooms at all.
Great point to bring up on ur 1st 2 sentences. Ur last (3rd one) ur dead wrong. discrimination is discrimination.
If I was 17 I would say you discriminate against me cause I can't smoke (in Ky.) or vote.
the bathroom example is 100% spot on and if you choose to neglect it your choosing hypocrisy. You have to draw the line in the sand, what is acceptable discrimination and what is not.
If I was 20 I would say I am being discriminated against because I can't drink. (alcohol). Your holding me back cause of my age.
To answer your 1st 2 sentences. I would defend with democracy. We are a Republic DEMOCRACY. Homosexual represent 1% of our total population. Sorry that's an EXTREME minority. the 99% should not back down cause of the 1%. Democracy works.
On July 30 2012 23:36 SayGen wrote: Shame no one ever tlkas about the rights of non Homosexuals.
I mean what if you want to be around like minded people? You have no safty net.
We don't allow men into ladys bathrooms, but that's ok discriminations. But to ban gays isn't ok discimination?
I support people who stand up for what htey beleive, reguardless of side. I do not support people who try force their beliefs down the throats of others. the BS has always been hetero. If you really want to be a gay scout why odn't you make your own group- I won't stop you.
I really see this as aggression on the part of homosexuals, and it really rubs me the wrong way.
How do heterosexuals lose any rights by being around homosexuals? I suppose you also hate the civil rights movement for black rights cos they were forcing their beliefs down the throats of others?
It's utterly ludicrous that you see this as aggression from homosexuals because they want to be accepted. Like seriously what the fuck?
I realize u like many see things from one perspective. That is normal and I'm not insulting you. I have a bad habbit of seeing thigns from left field, right field, the skybox, and the dugout.
Did you think maybe people don't want to accept them becuase they don't want to accept them? The Black Panthers don't like me. I'm white. Do I want to go to a Black PAnther meeting and make them accept me? No.
They can hate me all they want. It's kool.
If I want to be in a club with people jsut like me. I should be able to. It's not about keeping gays or anyone DOWN. It's about being allowed to form your own groups.
that's why I gave you the ridiculus example of not allowing males into female bathrooms. THAT IS SEXIST!!!!!
But it's ok. or is it?
Its funny because you act like the outside is fighting against the ban inside the boyscouts. This issue came up because BOYSCOUTS wanted to get rid of them ban. You act like the scouts are completely solid on this issue when that is not eve close to being true. Many boyscouts do like gays and want to be around them.
I act? Please highlight where I made that claim? Also the organization is represented by it's leaders, not all members. There is never perfect unity in any large group.
On July 30 2012 23:36 SayGen wrote: Shame no one ever tlkas about the rights of non Homosexuals.
I mean what if you want to be around like minded people? You have no safty net.
We don't allow men into ladys bathrooms, but that's ok discriminations. But to ban gays isn't ok discimination?
I support people who stand up for what htey beleive, reguardless of side. I do not support people who try force their beliefs down the throats of others. the BS has always been hetero. If you really want to be a gay scout why odn't you make your own group- I won't stop you.
I really see this as aggression on the part of homosexuals, and it really rubs me the wrong way.
How do heterosexuals lose any rights by being around homosexuals? I suppose you also hate the civil rights movement for black rights cos they were forcing their beliefs down the throats of others?
It's utterly ludicrous that you see this as aggression from homosexuals because they want to be accepted. Like seriously what the fuck?
I realize u like many see things from one perspective. That is normal and I'm not insulting you. I have a bad habbit of seeing thigns from left field, right field, the skybox, and the dugout.
Did you think maybe people don't want to accept them becuase they don't want to accept them? The Black Panthers don't like me. I'm white. Do I want to go to a Black PAnther meeting and make them accept me? No.
They can hate me all they want. It's kool.
If I want to be in a club with people jsut like me. I should be able to. It's not about keeping gays or anyone DOWN. It's about being allowed to form your own groups.
that's why I gave you the ridiculus example of not allowing males into female bathrooms. THAT IS SEXIST!!!!!
But it's ok. or is it?
And pray tell would you be comfortable if the Black Panthers were at least partially state funded?
also can you please clean up your writing because it's really hard at times to decipher what you're trying to say.
1) I don't appease Grammer Queens. 2) I would have no issue with that. Did you know we give FEDERAL funding to Abortion clinic as well as Pro Life clinics? Sounds cracy doesn't it? Democracy works, if you want to support something write your congressman/senator and make it happen.
On July 31 2012 00:21 DoubleReed wrote: The BSA gets federal funding to use a lot space and equipment. Federal funding should not be used to discriminate.
And there is no equivalence with male/female bathrooms at all.
Great point to bring up on ur 1st 2 sentences. Ur last (3rd one) ur dead wrong. discrimination is discrimination.
If I was 17 I would say you discriminate against me cause I can't smoke (in Ky.) or vote.
the bathroom example is 100% spot on and if you choose to neglect it your choosing hypocrisy. You have to draw the line in the sand, what is acceptable discrimination and what is not.
If I was 20 I would say I am being discriminated against because I can't drink. (alcohol). Your holding me back cause of my age.
To answer your 1st 2 sentences. I would defend with democracy. We are a Republic DEMOCRACY. Homosexual represent 1% of our total population. Sorry that's an EXTREME minority. the 99% should not back down cause of the 1%. Democracy works.
We are an American Democracy which means that minorities have rights regardless of what the majority thinks. That's the 14th Amendment you should check it out sometime.
Bathrooms are not equivalent. By law you must support both kinds of bathrooms. There is absolutely nothing discriminatory about having different bathrooms for people who go to the bathroom differently.
On July 30 2012 23:36 SayGen wrote: Shame no one ever tlkas about the rights of non Homosexuals.
I mean what if you want to be around like minded people? You have no safty net.
We don't allow men into ladys bathrooms, but that's ok discriminations. But to ban gays isn't ok discimination?
I support people who stand up for what htey beleive, reguardless of side. I do not support people who try force their beliefs down the throats of others. the BS has always been hetero. If you really want to be a gay scout why odn't you make your own group- I won't stop you.
I really see this as aggression on the part of homosexuals, and it really rubs me the wrong way.
How do heterosexuals lose any rights by being around homosexuals? I suppose you also hate the civil rights movement for black rights cos they were forcing their beliefs down the throats of others?
It's utterly ludicrous that you see this as aggression from homosexuals because they want to be accepted. Like seriously what the fuck?
I realize u like many see things from one perspective. That is normal and I'm not insulting you. I have a bad habbit of seeing thigns from left field, right field, the skybox, and the dugout.
Did you think maybe people don't want to accept them becuase they don't want to accept them? The Black Panthers don't like me. I'm white. Do I want to go to a Black PAnther meeting and make them accept me? No.
They can hate me all they want. It's kool.
If I want to be in a club with people jsut like me. I should be able to. It's not about keeping gays or anyone DOWN. It's about being allowed to form your own groups.
that's why I gave you the ridiculus example of not allowing males into female bathrooms. THAT IS SEXIST!!!!!
But it's ok. or is it?
And pray tell would you be comfortable if the Black Panthers were at least partially state funded?
also can you please clean up your writing because it's really hard at times to decipher what you're trying to say.
1) I don't appease Grammer Queens. 2) I would have no issue with that. Did you know we give FEDERAL funding to Abortion clinic as well as Pro Life clinics? Sounds cracy doesn't it? Democracy works, if you want to support something write your congressman/senator and make it happen.
Majoirity rules.
Yes there's no issue with funding abortion and pro life clinics because they don't actually remove rights of the people of the state. Having an abortion doesn't exclude or damage the rights of anyone else in a society.
Using federal funding to promote discrimination is fucking ass backwards and i can't see how that's contestable. Just because you are part of a majority group doesn't mean you can vote away the rights of minority groups just because fuck it majority says so.
Tomorrow you couldn't just vote away black peoples right to marry. Also the bathroom example isn't exactly perfect considering i've been to places that have unisex bathrooms and having different bathrooms for each sex doesn't really remove any rights from either sex at all. It's more historic than anything considering anyone can use a cubicle.
On July 30 2012 23:36 SayGen wrote: Shame no one ever tlkas about the rights of non Homosexuals.
I mean what if you want to be around like minded people? You have no safty net.
We don't allow men into ladys bathrooms, but that's ok discriminations. But to ban gays isn't ok discimination?
I support people who stand up for what htey beleive, reguardless of side. I do not support people who try force their beliefs down the throats of others. the BS has always been hetero. If you really want to be a gay scout why odn't you make your own group- I won't stop you.
I really see this as aggression on the part of homosexuals, and it really rubs me the wrong way.
How do heterosexuals lose any rights by being around homosexuals? I suppose you also hate the civil rights movement for black rights cos they were forcing their beliefs down the throats of others?
It's utterly ludicrous that you see this as aggression from homosexuals because they want to be accepted. Like seriously what the fuck?
I realize u like many see things from one perspective. That is normal and I'm not insulting you. I have a bad habbit of seeing thigns from left field, right field, the skybox, and the dugout.
Did you think maybe people don't want to accept them becuase they don't want to accept them? The Black Panthers don't like me. I'm white. Do I want to go to a Black PAnther meeting and make them accept me? No.
They can hate me all they want. It's kool.
If I want to be in a club with people jsut like me. I should be able to. It's not about keeping gays or anyone DOWN. It's about being allowed to form your own groups.
that's why I gave you the ridiculus example of not allowing males into female bathrooms. THAT IS SEXIST!!!!!
But it's ok. or is it?
And pray tell would you be comfortable if the Black Panthers were at least partially state funded?
also can you please clean up your writing because it's really hard at times to decipher what you're trying to say.
1) I don't appease Grammer Queens. 2) I would have no issue with that. Did you know we give FEDERAL funding to Abortion clinic as well as Pro Life clinics? Sounds cracy doesn't it? Democracy works, if you want to support something write your congressman/senator and make it happen.
Majoirity rules.
Yes there's no issue with funding abortion and pro life clinics because they don't actually remove rights of the people of the state. Having an abortion doesn't exclude or damage the rights of anyone else in a society.
Using federal funding to promote discrimination is fucking ass backwards and i can't see how that's contestable. Just because you are part of a majority group doesn't mean you can vote away the rights of minority groups just because fuck it majority says so.
Tomorrow you couldn't just vote away black peoples right to marry. Also the bathroom example isn't exactly perfect considering i've been to places that have unisex bathrooms and having different bathrooms for each sex doesn't really remove any rights from either sex at all. It's more historic than anything considering anyone can use a cubicle.
1) an abortion clinic removes the rights of the child. ...But a child can not speak! Nor can a mute man.
2) Yes we could/can. We had a system in place some only landowners could vote. black people voting is a concept that is still new. 100ish years is not a long time. Everything is up to interpertation/opinion. The bathroom was to give the most simplisitic example of how you cna create laws that are based purply on sex. It is a SEXIST law. It discriminates. SEPERATE BUT EQUAL ring a bell?
What is discrimination? What is lawful or unlawful discrimination? Where is the line in the sand?
You are still thinking 2D in a 3D world my friend.
On July 31 2012 00:41 SayGen wrote: For people who go to the bathroom different for people who express their sexuality differently.
Thanks.
Point Set. Match.
What does the boy scouts have to deal with expressing sexuality? What is fundamentally different between a gay boy scout and a hetero boy scout?
you just quoted it, how you express your sexuality.
Your claim would only have merit if the Boy Scouts was some "straight guy relationship group" and even then only if they had an equivalent option for homosexuals as well.
On July 30 2012 23:36 SayGen wrote: Shame no one ever tlkas about the rights of non Homosexuals.
I mean what if you want to be around like minded people? You have no safty net.
We don't allow men into ladys bathrooms, but that's ok discriminations. But to ban gays isn't ok discimination?
I support people who stand up for what htey beleive, reguardless of side. I do not support people who try force their beliefs down the throats of others. the BS has always been hetero. If you really want to be a gay scout why odn't you make your own group- I won't stop you.
I really see this as aggression on the part of homosexuals, and it really rubs me the wrong way.
How do heterosexuals lose any rights by being around homosexuals? I suppose you also hate the civil rights movement for black rights cos they were forcing their beliefs down the throats of others?
It's utterly ludicrous that you see this as aggression from homosexuals because they want to be accepted. Like seriously what the fuck?
I realize u like many see things from one perspective. That is normal and I'm not insulting you. I have a bad habbit of seeing thigns from left field, right field, the skybox, and the dugout.
Did you think maybe people don't want to accept them becuase they don't want to accept them? The Black Panthers don't like me. I'm white. Do I want to go to a Black PAnther meeting and make them accept me? No.
They can hate me all they want. It's kool.
If I want to be in a club with people jsut like me. I should be able to. It's not about keeping gays or anyone DOWN. It's about being allowed to form your own groups.
that's why I gave you the ridiculus example of not allowing males into female bathrooms. THAT IS SEXIST!!!!!
But it's ok. or is it?
And pray tell would you be comfortable if the Black Panthers were at least partially state funded?
also can you please clean up your writing because it's really hard at times to decipher what you're trying to say.
1) I don't appease Grammer Queens. 2) I would have no issue with that. Did you know we give FEDERAL funding to Abortion clinic as well as Pro Life clinics? Sounds cracy doesn't it? Democracy works, if you want to support something write your congressman/senator and make it happen.
Majoirity rules.
Yes there's no issue with funding abortion and pro life clinics because they don't actually remove rights of the people of the state. Having an abortion doesn't exclude or damage the rights of anyone else in a society.
Using federal funding to promote discrimination is fucking ass backwards and i can't see how that's contestable. Just because you are part of a majority group doesn't mean you can vote away the rights of minority groups just because fuck it majority says so.
Tomorrow you couldn't just vote away black peoples right to marry. Also the bathroom example isn't exactly perfect considering i've been to places that have unisex bathrooms and having different bathrooms for each sex doesn't really remove any rights from either sex at all. It's more historic than anything considering anyone can use a cubicle.
1) an abortion clinic removes the rights of the child. ...But a child can not speak! Nor can a mute man.
2) Yes we could/can. We had a system in place some only landowners could vote. black people voting is a concept that is still new. 100ish years is not a long time. Everything is up to interpertation/opinion. The bathroom was to give the most simplisitic example of how you cna create laws that are based purply on sex. It is a SEXIST law. It discriminates. SEPERATE BUT EQUAL ring a bell?
What is discrimination? What is lawful or unlawful discrimination? Where is the line in the sand?
You are still thinking 2D in a 3D world my friend.
First things first, don't call me friend. I'd hate to be associated with you short of this conversation.
Tell me exactly when did a fetus become a child in this analogy? There's a line of actual contention here because there's a difference between a fetus and a child. It however is a totally different argument and would end up going completely off topic.
And no, no you couldn't at point 2. Read your constitution. There's protection of minority rights.
As I said the bathroom thing doesn't impact the rights of either sex so I "cna't"(in your own words) see how it's really relevant.
On July 30 2012 14:22 cLAN.Anax wrote: Obama is only now showing interest in joining the pro-same-sex marriage camp; basically, he flip-flopped.
As an Eagle Scout, I approve of their decision to uphold this stance on the issue. Homosexuality, like sex ed in general, is thought best taught by the parent(s), not the BSA.
They may be the most discriminating of the youth organizations, but they also seem to be the group that gets the most done. Boy Scouts may not "embrace diversity," but I've respected them the most, for reasons other than this. Every November, we have "Scouting for Food," where we collected donated canned goods and give them to those in need. Girl Scouts (which have succumbed to most societal pressures, sadly) have... cookies. '>_> Through the BSA, I've conquered high-ropes courses, rappelled down cliff faces, backpacked around New Mexico, even camped in a cave. All the former Girl Scouts I've talked to wish they could have done all that stuff, but instead, they were relegated to boring, forgettable junk.
TL;DR: BSA has standards, doesn't let culture push it around; wish other organizations would take a hint.
"Standards" is a pretty fucked up way to euphemise discrimination. What if I justified racial discrimination to you by saying that we have "standards." You do understand that people who have been with the scouts for years were recently fired for no other reason other than the BSA wants to double down on the issue.
And shut up about the girl scouts. Capitalism is very much part of America. Selling delicious shit with awesome advertising and social manipulation by adorable little girls is way more American than anything the boy scouts do.
Wouldn’t surprise me if the BSA fires Scouts who harass or sleep with women on campouts. Shoot, even a Scout boasting about the number of girls he’s bedded is grounds for questioning by the leaders. Besides, that’s not the purpose of Boy Scouts. I’ll reiterate what I said earlier:
“The Boy Scouts want to promote the health and growth of boys becoming trustworthy, loyal, helpful,... etc., etc., men in a fun and safe environment. BSA doesn't want to put up with the drama that ensues from these issues; honestly, you can do anything that a Scout does without having to mention to anyone your sexual orientation, no matter what it is. If you have to bring that up, you're with the wrong group. You go there to camp and climb and fish and kayak and mature and etc., not sit around and talk about the initimate details of your recent sexual expereinces or which set of plumbing you prefer on a person.”
RE: Girl Scouts: Hey! I’m not saying Girl Scouts selling cookies is a bad thing! All I’m saying about that is the Boy Scouts do tons more than just do fundraisers. American?! Many Scouts go on to serve in the Armed Forces; it doesn’t get much more “American” than that. All Eagle Scouts volunteer themselves by leading an Eagle Project, the focus of which must demonstrate adequate leadership capability in the candidate and give back to the community in some form or fashion. Methinks you were never a Boy Scout, at least not for an appreciable amount of time, or you’ve never talked with an Eagle Scout about what they've done….
On July 30 2012 14:22 cLAN.Anax wrote: Obama is only now showing interest in joining the pro-same-sex marriage camp; basically, he flip-flopped.
As an Eagle Scout, I approve of their decision to uphold this stance on the issue. Homosexuality, like sex ed in general, is thought best taught by the parent(s), not the BSA.
They may be the most discriminating of the youth organizations, but they also seem to be the group that gets the most done. Boy Scouts may not "embrace diversity," but I've respected them the most, for reasons other than this. Every November, we have "Scouting for Food," where we collected donated canned goods and give them to those in need. Girl Scouts (which have succumbed to most societal pressures, sadly) have... cookies. '>_> Through the BSA, I've conquered high-ropes courses, rappelled down cliff faces, backpacked around New Mexico, even camped in a cave. All the former Girl Scouts I've talked to wish they could have done all that stuff, but instead, they were relegated to boring, forgettable junk.
TL;DR: BSA has standards, doesn't let culture push it around; wish other organizations would take a hint.
Sorry. You have a bad case of complete disconnection from reality, gay people don't walk up to you and say "Hi I'm gay, please allow me to explain how anal sex works", in the same way that when you meet a straight person they don't say "Hi I'm a dude and I love having sex with ladies, you see to have sex with a woman you stick your penis in their vagina. Oh and the name is david by the way" I say this because it actually sounds like you've never met a gay person before.
When I was a younger Boy Scout, we also didn't mention politics or even differing religions for that matter, because we knew that we each had our separate opinions on the matter and knew to let the parents talk to thier kids about those issues. BSA expects Mom and Dad to explain how sex works and what differing political opinions and religious beliefs are and what homosexuality is. Someone who is openly expressive of their sexuality, in my opinion, should not be tolerated, hetero- or homosexual; Boy Scouts isn't the place for it. There is a double standard on this, as I heard far more than my fair share of heterosexuality (boys will be boys...), but I disapprove of it just as ardently. Basically, BSA doesn't want to deal with any of it, because they believe it's not their place. To be honest, a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is acceptable here in my opinion, for any sexual orientation. I know it's not popular, but those are family issues (homosexuality, teenage promiscuity, etc.), and they should remain as such if you ask me.
Don't ask don't tell has another name, its called "its okay to be straight but it isn't okay to be gay" Your living in a dream world, people will have their sexuality, and too me its totally lunatic that someone would lose their position for mentioning that they have a boyfriend and they are also male. Its repressive and damaging and so backwards it makes me cackle with laughter that rules and the people that subscribe to them still exist. And then a little sad. Americas stance on anything that isn't white and hertero-normative is shameful.
BSA leaders frown upon Scouts bringing their girlfriends to Visit Night at Summer Camp too, if it makes you feel any better.
I really don't mind if a person's gay. Or straight. Or what-heck-the-frick-ever. It's not that we live in some "dream world" and say they don't exist. But a Boy Scout meeting or campout is not the place to bring those topics up, with other members of the Troop; the responsibility for those subjects is given solely to the parent(s) or guardian(s).
I tell you these things because it actually sounds as though you were never a Boy Scout or attended a BSA function before.... :-)
Of course I've never been to a BSA function before. I'm not American. All I want is for people that are boy scouts to not be fired for being gay, and not having to hide that they are attracted to the same sex. Someone clearly minds, because the BSA stigmatises being gay, the BSA don't have a rule on their books saying "To be a boy scout you need not to be straight" or perhaps even more workable "Only aromantic Asexuals are allowed to be leaders and members of boy scouts of America" The day a scout leader get kicked from a position for being straight, for having the gal to admitting that they have a girlfriend, or in some other way is revealed that they prefer the company of ladies is the day that I will eat my own feet. I think my ability to walk will be safe for some time to come.
Sorry, a Boy Scout function.
Look, the Boy Scouts want to promote the health and growth of boys becoming trustworthy, loyal, helpful,... etc., etc., men in a fun and safe environment. BSA doesn't want to put up with the drama that ensues from these issues; honestly, you can do anything that a Scout does without having to mention to anyone your sexual orientation, no matter what it is. If you have to bring that up, you're with the wrong group. You go there to camp and climb and fish and kayak and mature and etc., not sit around and talk about the initimate details of your recent sexual expereinces or which set of plumbing you prefer on a person.
So you are telling me that you never once referenced your fondness for women into boyscouts? lol. Are you serious? You are such a hypocrit.
No, actually, I didn’t. I’m one of the exceptions, but I’m proud to say that I never told my fellow Scouts my attraction to women. ^_^ Granted, it was for reasons completely unrelated to the reasons that I have now for this position, lol. Honestly, I had a really abnormal view for my life in high school and it’s really complicated and it doesn’t really pertain to the subject at hand. I need to write a TL blog someday; hopefully, I can elaborate on it there. Until then, please simply trust my candor.
In any case, please don’t call me a hypocrite so quickly like that when you’ve heard so little about me personally.
Back to the topic, there definitely IS a double standard within the BSA about this, and I don’t approve of it any more than you do; perhaps actually being a Scout, I approve of it even less. During my time, I was still inundated with talk about girls and sex, and I didn’t care for it one bit. I don’t believe that such talks should occur at Scout-ordained functions. Boy Scouts emphasizes the growth of young boys into men, not the discussion of Timmy’s promiscuity, or Johnny’s homosexuality. Scouts is not the time nor the place for those things; the BSA recognizes this, and entrusts the parent(s) with this responsibility instead.
On July 31 2012 00:21 DoubleReed wrote: The BSA gets federal funding to use a lot space and equipment. Federal funding should not be used to discriminate.
And there is no equivalence with male/female bathrooms at all.
Great point to bring up on ur 1st 2 sentences. Ur last (3rd one) ur dead wrong. discrimination is discrimination.
If I was 17 I would say you discriminate against me cause I can't smoke (in Ky.) or vote.
the bathroom example is 100% spot on and if you choose to neglect it your choosing hypocrisy. You have to draw the line in the sand, what is acceptable discrimination and what is not.
If I was 20 I would say I am being discriminated against because I can't drink. (alcohol). Your holding me back cause of my age.
To answer your 1st 2 sentences. I would defend with democracy. We are a Republic DEMOCRACY. Homosexual represent 1% of our total population. Sorry that's an EXTREME minority. the 99% should not back down cause of the 1%. Democracy works.
We are an American Democracy which means that minorities have rights regardless of what the majority thinks. That's the 14th Amendment you should check it out sometime.
Bathrooms are not equivalent. By law you must support both kinds of bathrooms. There is absolutely nothing discriminatory about having different bathrooms for people who go to the bathroom differently.
Also it's somewhere between 2-4%.
how did this thread get to if girls should piss standing up?
On July 31 2012 00:21 DoubleReed wrote: The BSA gets federal funding to use a lot space and equipment. Federal funding should not be used to discriminate.
And there is no equivalence with male/female bathrooms at all.
Great point to bring up on ur 1st 2 sentences. Ur last (3rd one) ur dead wrong. discrimination is discrimination.
If I was 17 I would say you discriminate against me cause I can't smoke (in Ky.) or vote.
the bathroom example is 100% spot on and if you choose to neglect it your choosing hypocrisy. You have to draw the line in the sand, what is acceptable discrimination and what is not.
If I was 20 I would say I am being discriminated against because I can't drink. (alcohol). Your holding me back cause of my age.
To answer your 1st 2 sentences. I would defend with democracy. We are a Republic DEMOCRACY. Homosexual represent 1% of our total population. Sorry that's an EXTREME minority. the 99% should not back down cause of the 1%. Democracy works.
We are an American Democracy which means that minorities have rights regardless of what the majority thinks. That's the 14th Amendment you should check it out sometime.
Bathrooms are not equivalent. By law you must support both kinds of bathrooms. There is absolutely nothing discriminatory about having different bathrooms for people who go to the bathroom differently.
Also it's somewhere between 2-4%.
how did this thread get to if girls should piss standing up?
I have no idea, but the guy insisted that having separate bathrooms for the sexes was 100% spot on analogy for firing homosexuals from being scout leaders for no other reason than being gay. Funny how some people's brains work.
EPT
.
Kindof curious how they thought when they changed from christian only to include also other religions, but not include atheists and agnostics.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BxDMV.png)
