|
On October 11 2012 05:18 shizaep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 05:06 Olinim wrote:On October 11 2012 05:02 shizaep wrote:On October 10 2012 13:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On October 10 2012 13:18 Djzapz wrote: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.
Why? Part of sticking up for my beliefs is not supporting (boycotting) people that discriminate against gays. Don't tell me who I should or shouldn't hate.
|
On October 11 2012 05:10 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 05:02 shizaep wrote:On October 10 2012 13:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On October 10 2012 13:18 Djzapz wrote: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). ;-)
You never said "punishment" but you definitely made it seem like "something should be done about it". Here's the thing about people who want "acceptance and understanding": Everyone deserves "acceptance and understanding" except the people who aren't "accepting or understanding". IMO, let them stick to their views.
|
On October 11 2012 05:23 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 05:18 shizaep wrote:On October 11 2012 05:06 Olinim wrote:On October 11 2012 05:02 shizaep wrote:On October 10 2012 13:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On October 10 2012 13:18 Djzapz wrote: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. Why? Part of sticking up for my beliefs is not supporting (boycotting) people that discriminate against gays. Don't tell me who I should or shouldn't hate.
If you hate people who aren't pro-homosexuality, then by the same logic, people who aren't pro-homosexuality have every right to do the same to you.
|
On October 09 2012 00:51 Zealos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 00:47 neversummer wrote:
and quite frankly I don't think gay men should be prancing around with large groups of 8-10 year old boys. You're literally the worst type of person this planet has. I would honestly like to see what kind of fucked up logic you use to defend this comment.
Although I don't agree with him...
I think the fear of 'omg he'll make my kids gay' is wrong. I think the fear of 'molestation' -could- be warrented, although that's very extreme...
If you change it too... A man should not be prancing around with large groups of 8-10 year old girls......
it changes it quite a bit doesnt it? Makes you think a little bit more....
Essentially it's the same thing as the homosexual man with the 8-10 year old boys.
It also comes back to sexism, due to the majority of people would not care at all , if it was an adult woman with a group of children under 10. It's very interesting how swapping the genders//sexual orientation in his example... changes your initial raw perception.
Im sure there are already debates on the topic, but I think it closely relates to people teaching young kids of the opposite sex (talking below 10 years old here).
About 5 years ago, this topic was brought up quite heavily in my country, as there was a big lack of male teachers for kids ages 5-10 in schools.
They wanted more male role models for the young boys. There were some extreme (and silly) arguments about how it could increase child abuse (lolwat)... it does sound very silly.
But then if you add the twist of... they are boy scouts going out alone into the forest as a group...... then peoples minds will start jogging, and that idea doesn't seem as absurd.
I think the Boy Scouts will have alot of trouble with this issue, mainly because people have a connotation of a group of kids with 1 adult alone in the woods.
|
On October 11 2012 05:23 shizaep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 05:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On October 11 2012 05:02 shizaep wrote:On October 10 2012 13:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On October 10 2012 13:18 Djzapz wrote: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). ;-) You never said "punishment" but you definitely made it seem like "something should be done about it". Here's the thing about people who want "acceptance and understanding": Everyone deserves "acceptance and understanding" except the people who aren't "accepting or understanding". IMO, let them stick to their views.
everyone should be allowed to express their views, and when views conflict people should share them with each other. nobody should force their views on others, which was my point. i dont think you should just turn a blind-eye to bigotry going on around you. i didnt agree to the BSA's policy and i took steps that i felt were appropriate (i withdrew from the BSA). it had no effect on BSA's policies and i am okay with that.
|
On October 11 2012 05:24 shizaep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 05:23 Olinim wrote:On October 11 2012 05:18 shizaep wrote:On October 11 2012 05:06 Olinim wrote:On October 11 2012 05:02 shizaep wrote:On October 10 2012 13:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On October 10 2012 13:18 Djzapz wrote: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. Why? Part of sticking up for my beliefs is not supporting (boycotting) people that discriminate against gays. Don't tell me who I should or shouldn't hate. If you hate people who aren't pro-homosexuality, then by the same logic, people who aren't pro-homosexuality have every right to do the same to you.
agreed wholeheartedly.
|
On October 11 2012 05:26 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 05:23 shizaep wrote:On October 11 2012 05:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On October 11 2012 05:02 shizaep wrote:On October 10 2012 13:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On October 10 2012 13:18 Djzapz wrote: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). ;-) You never said "punishment" but you definitely made it seem like "something should be done about it". Here's the thing about people who want "acceptance and understanding": Everyone deserves "acceptance and understanding" except the people who aren't "accepting or understanding". IMO, let them stick to their views. everyone should be allowed to express their views, and when views conflict people should share them with each other. nobody should force their views on others, which was my point. i dont think you should just turn a blind-eye to bigotry going on around you. i didnt agree to the BSA's policy and i took steps that i felt were appropriate (i withdrew from the BSA). it had no effect on BSA's policies and i am okay with that.
Yes, I think that that is very reasonable. When people disagree, they should calmly agree to disagree and go their separate ways. It's just the most sensible thing to do, I think. That's about everything that I'm going to say in this discussion.
|
On October 11 2012 04:20 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +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.
People are conditioned from a young age to believe in their religion, so I'd hardly consider it a real choice.
Yes, it's become more acceptable to reject or question your religion as you get older, but it's not like the parents sat their children down one day and said "So Timmy, do you want to be a christian?". They were taught the very opposite, religion was not a choice, it was a fact of their life.
Not to say there is no choice to religion, but to make a blanket statement saying religion is a choice, plain and simple, is just wrong.
|
On October 11 2012 05:46 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 04:20 Klondikebar wrote: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. People are conditioned from a young age to believe in their religion, so I'd hardly consider it a real choice. Yes, it's become more acceptable to reject or question your religion as you get older, but it's not like the parents sat their children down one day and said "So Timmy, do you want to be a christian?". They were taught the very opposite, religion was not a choice, it was a fact of their life. Not to say there is no choice to religion, but to make a blanket statement saying religion is a choice, plain and simple, is just wrong.
after you become an adult, nationality is a choice too, but they ban for nation-bashing as well.... just to throw some kerosene in the fire....
|
They are allowed to do whatever they want imo.
The scary thing is that such a horrible organisation is so big in the USA (and so respected). If anything needs to change it's the social climate, not the boy scouts.
Homophobia and religion are pretty deep-seated in American culture so it's gonna take a lot to change it, but some progress has already been made so hope isn't lost.
|
On October 11 2012 05:57 Starshaped wrote:
They are allowed to do whatever they want imo.
The scary thing is that such a horrible organisation is so big in the USA (and so respected). If anything needs to change it's the social climate, not the boy scouts.
Homophobia and religion are pretty deep-seated in American culture so it's gonna take a lot to change it, but some progress has already been made so hope isn't lost.
philosophically its a big issue, but practically its probably enforced very little. because of the dominance of religions, there is not likely to be many homosexual boys who join the BSA, and unlikely to be any non-religious homosexuals joining as adult scoutmasters. things like this just splash in the news headlines though.
|
On October 11 2012 06:04 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 05:57 Starshaped wrote:
They are allowed to do whatever they want imo.
The scary thing is that such a horrible organisation is so big in the USA (and so respected). If anything needs to change it's the social climate, not the boy scouts.
Homophobia and religion are pretty deep-seated in American culture so it's gonna take a lot to change it, but some progress has already been made so hope isn't lost. philosophically its a big issue, but practically its probably enforced very little. because of the dominance of religions, there is not likely to be many homosexual boys who join the BSA, and unlikely to be any non-religious homosexuals joining as adult scoutmasters. things like this just splash in the news headlines though.
Aren't boy scouts generally pretty young? Like, just kids? I'm not sure every homosexual (or heterosexual for that matter) has comes to terms with their own sexuality by then, much less told anyone else about it.
Besides, it's a fairly normal youth activity as far as I know, so excluding gays actually is a pretty big issue.
In a more perfect world their organisation wouldn't get a single member so long as they would proudly wear the badge of ignorance and bigotry.
|
Jeez...I am so glad that I am not religious lol. Why would anyone willingly become part of something that has nothing but controversy and negativity surrounding it. Religion does nothing but cause problems in the world. Oh well, back to watching pro sc2!!
|
On October 11 2012 06:20 Starshaped wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 06:04 dAPhREAk wrote:On October 11 2012 05:57 Starshaped wrote:
They are allowed to do whatever they want imo.
The scary thing is that such a horrible organisation is so big in the USA (and so respected). If anything needs to change it's the social climate, not the boy scouts.
Homophobia and religion are pretty deep-seated in American culture so it's gonna take a lot to change it, but some progress has already been made so hope isn't lost. philosophically its a big issue, but practically its probably enforced very little. because of the dominance of religions, there is not likely to be many homosexual boys who join the BSA, and unlikely to be any non-religious homosexuals joining as adult scoutmasters. things like this just splash in the news headlines though. Aren't boy scouts generally pretty young? Like, just kids? I'm not sure every homosexual (or heterosexual for that matter) has comes to terms with their own sexuality by then, much less told anyone else about it. Besides, it's a fairly normal youth activity as far as I know, so excluding gays actually is a pretty big issue. In a more perfect world their organisation wouldn't get a single member so long as they would proudly wear the badge of ignorance and bigotry.
i imagine they learn of their sexuality in their early to late teens.
nevertheless, statistically, i doubt this policy is applied much to exclude homosexuals because of the few who join or come out during their tenancy. thus, practically, its a relatively non-issue that is blown up in the media.
|
On October 11 2012 06:40 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 06:20 Starshaped wrote:On October 11 2012 06:04 dAPhREAk wrote:On October 11 2012 05:57 Starshaped wrote:
They are allowed to do whatever they want imo.
The scary thing is that such a horrible organisation is so big in the USA (and so respected). If anything needs to change it's the social climate, not the boy scouts.
Homophobia and religion are pretty deep-seated in American culture so it's gonna take a lot to change it, but some progress has already been made so hope isn't lost. philosophically its a big issue, but practically its probably enforced very little. because of the dominance of religions, there is not likely to be many homosexual boys who join the BSA, and unlikely to be any non-religious homosexuals joining as adult scoutmasters. things like this just splash in the news headlines though. Aren't boy scouts generally pretty young? Like, just kids? I'm not sure every homosexual (or heterosexual for that matter) has comes to terms with their own sexuality by then, much less told anyone else about it. Besides, it's a fairly normal youth activity as far as I know, so excluding gays actually is a pretty big issue. In a more perfect world their organisation wouldn't get a single member so long as they would proudly wear the badge of ignorance and bigotry. i imagine they learn of their sexuality in their early to late teens. nevertheless, statistically, i doubt this policy is applied much to exclude homosexuals because of the few who join or come out during their tenancy. thus, practically, its a relatively non-issue that is blown up in the media.
Even if they never excluded a single person I would still protest their policy of hate. It's the thought that counts. I mean, consider the message they are sending out to people, especially kids. It's disgusting.
|
On October 11 2012 05:16 Glurkenspurk wrote:
But you're still part of an organization that supports that. 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.
You're right, Boy Scouts has a lot in common with the Ku Klux Klan. Except the KKK killed and terrorized blacks whereas the BSA just doesn't allow openly gay and atheist members.
|
On October 11 2012 06:48 Starshaped wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 06:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On October 11 2012 06:20 Starshaped wrote:On October 11 2012 06:04 dAPhREAk wrote:On October 11 2012 05:57 Starshaped wrote:
They are allowed to do whatever they want imo.
The scary thing is that such a horrible organisation is so big in the USA (and so respected). If anything needs to change it's the social climate, not the boy scouts.
Homophobia and religion are pretty deep-seated in American culture so it's gonna take a lot to change it, but some progress has already been made so hope isn't lost. philosophically its a big issue, but practically its probably enforced very little. because of the dominance of religions, there is not likely to be many homosexual boys who join the BSA, and unlikely to be any non-religious homosexuals joining as adult scoutmasters. things like this just splash in the news headlines though. Aren't boy scouts generally pretty young? Like, just kids? I'm not sure every homosexual (or heterosexual for that matter) has comes to terms with their own sexuality by then, much less told anyone else about it. Besides, it's a fairly normal youth activity as far as I know, so excluding gays actually is a pretty big issue. In a more perfect world their organisation wouldn't get a single member so long as they would proudly wear the badge of ignorance and bigotry. i imagine they learn of their sexuality in their early to late teens. nevertheless, statistically, i doubt this policy is applied much to exclude homosexuals because of the few who join or come out during their tenancy. thus, practically, its a relatively non-issue that is blown up in the media. Even if they never excluded a single person I would still protest their policy of hate. It's the thought that counts. I mean, consider the message they are sending out to people, especially kids. It's disgusting.
i dont disagree. philosophically its a big issue.
|
On October 11 2012 06:20 Starshaped wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 06:04 dAPhREAk wrote:On October 11 2012 05:57 Starshaped wrote:
They are allowed to do whatever they want imo.
The scary thing is that such a horrible organisation is so big in the USA (and so respected). If anything needs to change it's the social climate, not the boy scouts.
Homophobia and religion are pretty deep-seated in American culture so it's gonna take a lot to change it, but some progress has already been made so hope isn't lost. philosophically its a big issue, but practically its probably enforced very little. because of the dominance of religions, there is not likely to be many homosexual boys who join the BSA, and unlikely to be any non-religious homosexuals joining as adult scoutmasters. things like this just splash in the news headlines though. Aren't boy scouts generally pretty young? Like, just kids? I'm not sure every homosexual (or heterosexual for that matter) has comes to terms with their own sexuality by then, much less told anyone else about it. Besides, it's a fairly normal youth activity as far as I know, so excluding gays actually is a pretty big issue. In a more perfect world their organisation wouldn't get a single member so long as they would proudly wear the badge of ignorance and bigotry.
I think it starts around 11 years old, but it's been mentioned earlier in this topic. I knew I was straight from an incredibly early age - probably as young as ~5. It's amazing how people, who may have not developed their sexuality until much later, however, refuse to believe that any identity could be developed at such a young age simply because their own personal experiences did not coincide with other people's experiences.
|
They are a private organization and they have the right of free speech, which includes right of association. Same reason why a church cannot be forced to marry a Gay couple, or a place of worship to be forced for that matter. If you don't like the BSA, just don't send your kid there. Simple enough ?
|
On October 11 2012 07:00 jyuj wrote:
They are a private organization and they have the right of free speech, which includes right of association. Same reason why a church cannot be forced to marry a Gay couple, or a place of worship to be forced for that matter. If you don't like the BSA, just don't send your kid there. Simple enough ?
The issue is them being the recipient of government funding as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
