On October 11 2012 02:26 dAPhREAk wrote: that lawsuit was thrown out of the courts, fyi.
and? Are you saying the accusations of taxpayers money being spent are false? If not what's your point?
it means that there are no factual findings that are proven/binding on anyone. and the article you cited, which refers to the plaintiff's allegations, is basically biased as hell since it is, after all, the plaintiff's unproven allegations. so, the article and lawsuit prove nothing. (i would say that the ACLU are a poor source of unbiased information as well, but don't even need to go that far.)
when a district court does something and then an appellate court throws the case out saying that the district court was not allowed to do anything, the appellate court throws out the district court's factual findings, legal rulings, etc. you are citing to old articles... find something after the appellate court threw out the case saying the district court had no jurisdiction in the first place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winkler_v._Rumsfeld m Fair enough but my point still stands, the federal government funded jamoborees with taxpayer money. The case was thrown out because "The US Court of Appeals determined in April 2007 in Winkler vs Gates that the plaintiffs had no legal standing to bring the suit in the first place, thus ending the suit and affirming that the military may assist future jamborees, including providing campsites at Fort A.P. Hill."
Therefore I still fail to see your point.
On October 11 2012 03:07 dAPhREAk wrote: not my original source, but here from the ACLU:
his case involves whether use by the Scouts of a military base for their national Jamboree involves an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The District Court held that it does. Oral arguments were heard on the case in April of 2006, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh District, in Illinois. On April 12, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed the case finding that the ACLU did not have standing..
edit: doh, that is ACRU..... lol... =( [insert japanese surprise/supplies joke here]
Why would you cut off half the sentence? NO WHERE will it say the case was thrown out because the facts were false. The military DID fund the jamborees with tax payer money.
my point is that case means nothing because there were no binding, factual findings. so, pointing to that case and saying "look they received federal funding" is silly.
i accidentally cut off the "T." my apologies. nowhere does the case say the facts are true....
And with that I'm done, you're arguing that the case was thrown out which everyone knows. I'm arguing that the military spent tax payer money on the event. If you want to prove me otherwise that's fine. but beyond that you're wasting my time.
On October 11 2012 02:26 dAPhREAk wrote: that lawsuit was thrown out of the courts, fyi.
and? Are you saying the accusations of taxpayers money being spent are false? If not what's your point?
it means that there are no factual findings that are proven/binding on anyone. and the article you cited, which refers to the plaintiff's allegations, is basically biased as hell since it is, after all, the plaintiff's unproven allegations. so, the article and lawsuit prove nothing. (i would say that the ACLU are a poor source of unbiased information as well, but don't even need to go that far.)
when a district court does something and then an appellate court throws the case out saying that the district court was not allowed to do anything, the appellate court throws out the district court's factual findings, legal rulings, etc. you are citing to old articles... find something after the appellate court threw out the case saying the district court had no jurisdiction in the first place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winkler_v._Rumsfeld m Fair enough but my point still stands, the federal government funded jamoborees with taxpayer money. The case was thrown out because "The US Court of Appeals determined in April 2007 in Winkler vs Gates that the plaintiffs had no legal standing to bring the suit in the first place, thus ending the suit and affirming that the military may assist future jamborees, including providing campsites at Fort A.P. Hill."
Therefore I still fail to see your point.
On October 11 2012 03:07 dAPhREAk wrote: not my original source, but here from the ACLU:
his case involves whether use by the Scouts of a military base for their national Jamboree involves an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The District Court held that it does. Oral arguments were heard on the case in April of 2006, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh District, in Illinois. On April 12, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed the case finding that the ACLU did not have standing..
edit: doh, that is ACRU..... lol... =( [insert japanese surprise/supplies joke here]
Why would you cut off half the sentence? NO WHERE will it say the case was thrown out because the facts were false. The military DID fund the jamborees with tax payer money.
my point is that case means nothing because there were no binding, factual findings. so, pointing to that case and saying "look they received federal funding" is silly.
i accidentally cut off the "T." my apologies. nowhere does the case say the facts are true....
And with that I'm done, you're arguing that the case was thrown out which everyone knows. I'm arguing that the military spent tax payer money on the event. If you want to prove me otherwise that's fine. but beyond that you're wasting my time.
what you just cited to is an appellate brief. its the contentions of fact and law of a party (in this case the attorney general). it proves what they contend, it does not prove facts.
On October 11 2012 01:17 kmillz wrote: I am always baffled when I hear "there is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia" as the argument for lifting the ban in BSA. While it is true that there is no connection, most pedophiles are male so the concern of females sexually abusing a boy scout should be significantly lower than of men.
"Most sexual offenders against children are male, although female offenders may account for 0.4% to 4% of convicted sexual offenders. On the basis of a range of published reports, McConaghy estimates a 10 to 1 ratio of male-to-female child molesters."
A male pedophile who abuses little boys IS a homosexual. While that does not mean homosexuals are pedophiles, lifting the ban on gays would completely open that door for more pedophiles to prey on small boys because they no longer have to pretend like they are straight.
This should have all the information you require to see why although the premise that men rape more children then women is true, homosexuals being more apt to rape children is not. Rape is about power, not homosexuality.
Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority's most vulnerable members. For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women.
In a similar fashion, gay people have often been portrayed as a threat to children. Back in 1977, when Anita Bryant campaigned successfully to repeal a Dade County (FL) ordinance prohibiting anti-gay discrimination, she named her organization "Save Our Children," and warned that "a particularly deviant-minded [gay] teacher could sexually molest children" (Bryant, 1977, p. 114). [Bibliographic references are on a different web page]
In recent years, antigay activists have routinely asserted that gay people are child molesters. This argument was often made in debates about the Boy Scouts of America's policy to exclude gay scouts and scoutmasters. More recently, in the wake of Rep. Mark Foley's resignation from the US House of Representatives in 2006, antigay activists and their supporters seized on the scandal to revive this canard.
There are a list of studies but this shows it.
This study, described above in the section on "Other Approaches," contradicts the FRC's argument. The FRC faults the study because the researchers didn't directly interview perpetrators but instead relied on the victims' medical charts for information about the offender's sexual orientation. However, other studies cited favorably by the FRC (and summarized in this section) similarly relied on chart data (Erickson et al., 1988) or did not directly assess the sexual orientation of perpetrators (Blanchard et al. 2000; Elliott et al. 1995; Marshall et al., 1988). Thus, the FRC apparently considers this method a weakness only when it leads to results they dislike.
This is what rape to weaker people means, it means power (in a very animal sense).
Penn and Teller, on their show Bullshit! (pardon the language, thats the actual name of the show) covered this topic, and blow it wide open. I'm not sure if I can link, but I will try: Warning, Penn uses a lot of profanity, so not safe for children or at work with speakers.
Ultimately, where the policies changed regarding the place of religion and acceptance (or lack thereof) of homosexuality was when funding started to come from the Mormon Church back in the early 1980's.
The current BSA is not the same as it was way back when it was started, and in fact, in the early 80's the Scout Master's Handbook was rewritten. The original version advised leaders NOT to interfere or instruct in the subject of sex or family life.
Now, do keep in mind that the Boy Scouts of Canada, and other regions have different funding, and their basic rules are different. An example of this: http://www2.scouts.ca/handbooks/Scout Leaders Handbook_Scouts Canada.pdf The Candian version of Boy Scouts does NOT descrimate based on Religion, sexual preference and the like. HOWEVER, Boy Scouts of Canada does have an emphasis on a Duty to God, so I do not know how this would play out for an Athiest in practicality.
Why is it ok for the OP to bash Christians yet someone bashes Gays and they get temp banned?
BSA is a Christian organization. If people don't agree with their values, they shouldn't join. It that simple. I don't get why its ok to push 'pro gay' ideas on other people and organization but not push your 'anti gay' ideas on organizations or people. Its a double standard.
On October 11 2012 04:09 StreetWise wrote: Why is it ok for the OP to bash Christians yet someone bashes Gays and they get temp banned?
BSA is a Christian organization. If people don't agree with their values, they shouldn't join. It that simple. I don't get why its ok to push 'pro gay' ideas on other people and organization but not push your 'anti gay' ideas on organizations or people. Its a double standard.
Being Christian is a choice. Choices can be criticized and even ridiculed.
Being gay is not a choice. You might as well call someone stupid for being born black or blonde.
And no one is pushing "pro gay" ideas on the BSA. They're more than welcome to continue being bigots from the 1950's. People just don't want them getting government funding.
On October 11 2012 04:08 Probe1 wrote: I say this in every BSA thread. In my troop there was a Jewish kid and I know one of them that grew up to be homosexual. Nobody judged.
National leaderships a joke.
But isn't it to local chapters that give the organization its prestige and ultimately the national leadership the influence to spread their discriminatory agenda?
On October 11 2012 04:09 StreetWise wrote: Why is it ok for the OP to bash Christians yet someone bashes Gays and they get temp banned?
BSA is a Christian organization. If people don't agree with their values, they shouldn't join. It that simple. I don't get why its ok to push 'pro gay' ideas on other people and organization but not push your 'anti gay' ideas on organizations or people. Its a double standard.
I don't think you understand comparison between apples and oranges... Gay = reality, religion = choice... And the person who was warned/temp banned was using homophobic rhetoric "prancing around" trying to degrade said position.
And Jesus might have a few words with you about how "Christian" that organization is :D
Pretty poorly written OP, just a negative rant that promotes more negative rants. I received my eagle scout years ago and I loved my experience in BSA and I would encourage it for any young man despite his sexual preference. We are talking about middle school and high school kids here by the way. BSA has always identified itself with Christian values (similar to Chik-fil-a) and they have the right to support and uphold their own beliefs. When I went through BSA, no one ever made me prove I was straight, much less ask me. So why cant a gay kid just sign up and leave the sexual preference out of it? Maybe in some cases there are kids who get "ratted out" and are asked to leave? This would be a bummer, but, again the organization practices what it preaches and they can exercise their freedom. This topic is such a scapegoat for people to whine
On October 11 2012 04:09 StreetWise wrote: Why is it ok for the OP to bash Christians yet someone bashes Gays and they get temp banned?
BSA is a Christian organization. If people don't agree with their values, they shouldn't join. It that simple. I don't get why its ok to push 'pro gay' ideas on other people and organization but not push your 'anti gay' ideas on organizations or people. Its a double standard.
This is so painfully true. That's internet mods for you tho :/. I did not have to face this issue when i went through BSA but 1 thing I know and will actively promote is that BSA is a great organization, but like any, it can only take a few to start a negative image. Please take the time to realize that the BSA mission is not hate.
On October 10 2012 13:02 dAPhREAk wrote: its okay for the BSA to stick to their views.
its okay for people to boycott them for their views.
I used to think like that, but in retrospect, people don't necessarily stand up for minorities and we can't trust them to do it. Not every time.
i have a problem with the trend of people/government deciding how other people should think, or what they should believe.
You say it's okay for people to stick for their views but right after you go on to say that it's okay for people to "boycott" or "punish" them for sharing these views, implying that it is, in fact, not okay to uphold these views.
If you thought it was okay for the BSA to uphold their views, you would let them be and not go on forums to criticize their beliefs because they are not like yours, which are obviously "correct".
And, yeah, this thread is really just people who think "homesexuality is perfectly allright and we should embrace it and have gay parades" vs. people who think "homosexuality is wrong".
The OP is written in a really biased way and it is just begging for arguments. There are people who think both ways. Both of them think their view is "correct". Religion/societal views is just not something that you can convince someone to change their views about, least of all on the internet.
On October 10 2012 13:02 dAPhREAk wrote: its okay for the BSA to stick to their views.
its okay for people to boycott them for their views.
I used to think like that, but in retrospect, people don't necessarily stand up for minorities and we can't trust them to do it. Not every time.
i have a problem with the trend of people/government deciding how other people should think, or what they should believe.
You say it's okay for people to stick for their views but right after you go on to say that it's okay for people to "boycott" or "punish" them for sharing these views, implying that it is, in fact, not okay to uphold these views.
If you thought it was okay for the BSA to uphold their views, you would let them be and not go on forums to criticize their beliefs because they are not like yours, which are obviously "correct".
He probably means it's okay in the sense that they have a legal right to do that. Not that he won't criticize their backwards beliefs or boycott them because of it, just that he wouldn't try to pass a law about it or force them to change.
On October 10 2012 13:02 dAPhREAk wrote: its okay for the BSA to stick to their views.
its okay for people to boycott them for their views.
I used to think like that, but in retrospect, people don't necessarily stand up for minorities and we can't trust them to do it. Not every time.
i have a problem with the trend of people/government deciding how other people should think, or what they should believe.
You say it's okay for people to stick for their views but right after you go on to say that it's okay for people to "boycott" or "punish" them for sharing these views, implying that it is, in fact, not okay to uphold these views.
If you thought it was okay for the BSA to uphold their views, you would let them be and not go on forums to criticize their beliefs because they are not like yours, which are obviously "correct".
i neither agree with your interpretation of what im saying (and i dont recall saying punished, but i may be incorrect), or your subsequent statement as to how i should act.
edit: the guy above me got it right (unless he ninjas and changes it, of course). ;-)
On October 11 2012 04:08 Probe1 wrote: I say this in every BSA thread. In my troop there was a Jewish kid and I know one of them that grew up to be homosexual. Nobody judged.
National leaderships a joke.
But you're still part of an organization that supports that shit. Even if your small group personally doesn't. It's like being in a moderate version of the kkk that just meets up for cake once a month. You're still a kkk member.
On October 10 2012 13:02 dAPhREAk wrote: its okay for the BSA to stick to their views.
its okay for people to boycott them for their views.
I used to think like that, but in retrospect, people don't necessarily stand up for minorities and we can't trust them to do it. Not every time.
i have a problem with the trend of people/government deciding how other people should think, or what they should believe.
You say it's okay for people to stick for their views but right after you go on to say that it's okay for people to "boycott" or "punish" them for sharing these views, implying that it is, in fact, not okay to uphold these views.
If you thought it was okay for the BSA to uphold their views, you would let them be and not go on forums to criticize their beliefs because they are not like yours, which are obviously "correct".
He probably means it's okay in the sense that they have a legal right to do that. Not that he won't criticize their backwards beliefs or boycott them because of it, just that he wouldn't try to pass a law about it or force them to change.
Yes, if you think that these beliefs are "backwards", by all means go ahead, I commend you for sticking up for them. The BSA thinks that your beliefs are backwards and they can stand up for them too. I believe that if they want to, they can. Just because you share a belief about how society should function, doesn't necessarily mean it should function that way. Live your own life and let the BSA live theirs. Don't hate them for it and don't "boycott" them. Just disagree with them and leave them alone.
EPT
