| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
OceanLab
France505 Posts
So what if they do not accept gay people in their ranks? They aren't beating them up or insulting them or anything of the sort are they? If an individual does not feel comfortable around gay people, who are you to force him to hang out with them? I mean what stops you from creating a different boy scouts organization that accepts gay people? PS Just so you know I have nothing against gay people | ||
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
On October 11 2012 12:01 heliusx wrote: Don't forget the DoD has used 29million tax payer dollars in the past 30 years to help cover expenses at the jamborees. Let's also not forget they get access to public equipment and land anytime they want. Yeah, totally not funded or helped by the government not at all. On October 11 2012 13:34 heliusx wrote:except they use taxpayer money for their benefit, so no you don't have to tolerate them. I'm not too informed on this topic. I get the sneaking suspicion that you aren't either. But the arrangement that you're referring to above (the Department of Defense's supplemental funding of BSA jamborees) seems to have already been resolved. The constitutionality of the DoD's support of BSA was called into question, the case was thrown out of court, and the BSA has since moved the location of their jamborees to private, non-military land. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winkler_v._Rumsfeld It's interesting to note that part of the reason that the Department of Defense shared certain expenses with the BSA for these jamborees was that it regarded "the national Scout jamboree as beneficial for public relations and recruitment," as well as "a unique training opportunity, particularly in testing operations needed to support large scale military encampments or refugee tent cities." In other words the DoD's investment in BSA is just that, an investment from which they expect and attain certain returns that ultimately support the mission of the DoD and therefore benefit the very taxpayers that (to a very small degree) foot the bill in the first place. The whole BSA-gets-arbitrary-preferential-treatment narrative, therefore, seems a little unfair to the complexity of the situation. It's also interesting to note that the DoD will likely still send troops to future jamborees (even though they are no longer to be held on military-owned land) precisely because of the "recruiting and training opportunity" that the BSA jamboree provides to them. Once again the relevance of this is that obviously participation in these jamborees is important to and beneficial for the purposes of the Department of Defense. Once again it represents, in the Department of Defense's perspective, taxpayer money well spent, not taxpayer money unfairly donated to an organization that holds views at odds with certain taxpaying demographics. Ultimately, I think your approach to this whole issue is a little under-read and a little too black-and-white. You seem eager to paint this as a simple abuse of government funding, but it's probably more useful to look at it in a broader historical and political context, with due attention paid to the arguments that could be presented from both sides, as well as similar agreements between the government and other organizations that might provide insight into the sort of norms and precedents that obtain for an event like the BSA jamboree. But then again complexity is typically the first casualty of culture war. It's much easier to galvanize a voting bloc under the assertion that the opposite side consists of progress-hating bigots (or, for that matter, anti-American socialists), rather than a cadre of fellow citizens attempting to navigate the largely uncharted interstices of personal conviction and democratic duty. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10935 Posts
On October 11 2012 14:38 OceanLab wrote: People talk about tolerance yet show none. So what if they do not accept gay people in their ranks? They aren't beating them up or insulting them or anything of the sort are they? If an individual does not feel comfortable around gay people, who are you to force him to hang out with them? I mean what stops you from creating a different boy scouts organization that accepts gay people? PS Just so you know I have nothing against gay people Tolerating intolerance is one of the worst things a community can do, only bad things can come from it in the long run... Becuse suddenly intolerance becomes "normal" and there just comes nothing good from that. If the individual does not feel comfortable around gay people, he should just man up and shut up. If someone does not feel comfortable around gingers... Would you protect him from feeling akward too? I hope not.... | ||
|
DigitalDevil
219 Posts
On October 11 2012 14:38 OceanLab wrote: People talk about tolerance yet show none. So what if they do not accept gay people in their ranks? They aren't beating them up or insulting them or anything of the sort are they? If an individual does not feel comfortable around gay people, who are you to force him to hang out with them? I mean what stops you from creating a different boy scouts organization that accepts gay people? PS Just so you know I have nothing against gay people Generally, when people support tolerance, they mean tolerance towards differing points of views that cannot be proven objectively and that don't harm and/or discriminate. A person can be "intolerant" towards things that are factually proven wrong. If I said 2+2=5 and claimed that I have the right to hold that opinion, through rationality, you should be intolerant towards my ignorant statement. As for the latter condition, it might be possible through severe warping of human rights and ethics for a person to somehow provide justification for harm/discrimination. But in a progressive world I wouldn't expect tolerance towards hateful speech/actions that cannot be backed up by reason. | ||
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
On October 11 2012 16:49 DigitalDevil wrote: Generally, when people support tolerance, they mean tolerance towards differing points of views that cannot be proven objectively and that don't harm and/or discriminate. A person can be "intolerant" towards things that are factually proven wrong. If I said 2+2=5 and claimed that I have the right to hold that opinion, through rationality, you should be intolerant towards my ignorant statement. As for the latter condition, it might be possible through severe warping of human rights and ethics for a person to somehow provide justification for harm/discrimination. But in a progressive world I wouldn't expect tolerance towards hateful speech/actions that cannot be backed up by reason. In what sense is your stance on homosexuality or human rights "factually" provable? In what sense are you "objectively" correct? | ||
|
Introvert
United States5013 Posts
For the record, I am an Eagle Scout. "Recently, a Scout proactively notified his unit leadership and Eagle Scout counselor that he does not agree to Scouting's principle of 'Duty to God,' and does not meet Scouting's membership standard on sexual orientation," the statement reads. "While the Boy Scouts of America did not proactively ask for this information, based on his statements and after discussion with his family, he is being informed that he is no longer eligible for membership in Scouting." Why did he say this right before he was going to be given the award? It seems to me that he thought it was a done deal and so saying it would be "sticking it to the BSA." I can see no other reason for this ill timed revelation. He knew throughout scouting than such practices were not allowed, yet he decided to join and keep it all a secret anyway. I feel bad that he did all the work, but this knowingly deceptive behavior is not becoming of an Eagle Scout (yes, I am aware he was unaware of his orientation at age 6). An even bigger problem is the following: "he does not agree to Scouting's principle of 'Duty to God'" This is unacceptable. Every time scouts meet they recite the Pledge of Allegiance, the Scout Oath, and the Scout Law. The first 2 make explicit references to God, and the latter includes the trait of "reverence" in a list of things that a scout should be. Now I don't know if he is an atheist or not, but saying this is a huge no-no, it basically means he was lying all those years and does not believe in a core tenant of the organization's founding. On these grounds alone I support the decision. The only statement from a BSA official listed both Duty to God AND homosexuality as grounds for refusal. This thing about "he was rejected because he's gay!" is only part of the story. The only part people want to focus on. Don't join an organization you know bans these things in first place. And DON'T reveal right before the final hurdle. And the scouts are hardly evil, they have a long record of service at the national level and in the community. | ||
|
LakseWim
Netherlands202 Posts
| ||
|
goodkarma
United States1067 Posts
The Boy Scouts are a private organization. Which means they are constitutionally entitled to believe whatever they want, and admit whoever they want. The KKK (another private organization) has done far worse things than any Boy Scout, and admit people on a discriminatory basis. Yet you're not telling them to admit African Americans. Perhaps denying gays from the organization is intolerant. But instead of whining about it maybe you should make your own organization. Call it the Tolerance Scouts of America, and stop bitching in thread. | ||
|
DigitalDevil
219 Posts
On October 11 2012 16:59 HULKAMANIA wrote: In what sense is your stance on homosexuality or human rights "factually" provable? In what sense are you "objectively" correct? Did I say I was objectively correct? As it applies to this thread, the first condition is not what is being argued. What is the issue is that there is blatant discrimination with no reasonable justification. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10935 Posts
I personally would be against any rule that just "outlaws" homosexuals but well, the above should ring a bell to just about anyone... | ||
|
OceanLab
France505 Posts
On October 11 2012 16:14 Velr wrote: Tolerating intolerance is one of the worst things a community can do, only bad things can come from it in the long run... Becuse suddenly intolerance becomes "normal" and there just comes nothing good from that. If the individual does not feel comfortable around gay people, he should just man up and shut up. If someone does not feel comfortable around gingers... Would you protect him from feeling akward too? I hope not.... And most of them do man up and shut up. But does that mean they HAVE TO accept into their group of friends, or in this case, their troop. I mean in France for example, we have different boy scout organizations and some of them "accept" gay people while others don't, and I find perfectly fine (they also have jewish scouts, protestant scouts, atheists scouts, pretty much any type of scouts). Of course I don't know if there are any alternatives in the US, and that might indeed be a problem. That and the fact that they are apparently partially funded by the govt of course. | ||
|
DigitalDevil
219 Posts
On October 11 2012 18:02 OceanLab wrote: And most of them do man up and shut up. But does that mean they HAVE TO accept into their group of friends, or in this case, their troop. I mean in France for example, we have different boy scout organizations and some of them "accept" gay people while others don't, and I find perfectly fine (they also have jewish scouts, protestant scouts, atheists scouts, pretty much any type of scouts). Of course I don't know if there are any alternatives in the US, and that might indeed be a problem. That and the fact that they are apparently partially funded by the govt of course. They are not forced to do anything. This is especially true since they are also a private organization. But they should expect criticism as it is the opinion of probably the majority that what they are doing is not right. If I declared that I was racist towards people of any ethnicity other than my own, I am not forced to become friends with any of them. However, that doesn't stop other people from criticizing my stance. I am still entitled to my free will, meaning that I can either remain a racist or cave in to the demands of the majority who have a stronger case for why I am in the wrong. | ||
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
On October 11 2012 17:54 DigitalDevil wrote: Did I say I was objectively correct? As it applies to this thread, the first condition is not what is being argued. What is the issue is that there is blatant discrimination with no reasonable justification. Oh, I get it now. The first condition doesn't apply to the thread. My bad. It's the second condition, which, if I'm following correctly, is that you don't think his position is progressive enough and that it also fosters "hate." Just for clarification: do you think the BSA hates homosexuals? Do you think their speech and actions are hateful? | ||
|
DigitalDevil
219 Posts
On October 11 2012 18:09 HULKAMANIA wrote: Oh, I get it now. The first condition doesn't apply to the thread. My bad. It's the second condition, which, if I'm following correctly, is that you don't think his position is progressive enough and that it also fosters "hate." Just for clarification: do you think the BSA hates homosexuals? Do you think their speech and actions are hateful? Perhaps you would like to give me reason to think otherwise? | ||
|
OceanLab
France505 Posts
On October 11 2012 18:17 DigitalDevil wrote: Perhaps you would like to give me reason to think otherwise? I can't answer for him, nor for the BSA, BUT I have a few christians friends that don't approve of homosexuality yet are nowhere near hateful towards gay people, | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10935 Posts
| ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On October 11 2012 22:09 Velr wrote: The problem with this is that you can't or cannot "approve" Homosexuality. Thats like openly approving or not approving people on the grounds of haircolor or size... Homosexuality is not a choice. Are homosexual actions a choice? | ||
micronesia
United States24784 Posts
On October 11 2012 17:32 Introvert wrote: Didn't we have a similar thread before? For the record, I am an Eagle Scout. "Recently, a Scout proactively notified his unit leadership and Eagle Scout counselor that he does not agree to Scouting's principle of 'Duty to God,' and does not meet Scouting's membership standard on sexual orientation," the statement reads. "While the Boy Scouts of America did not proactively ask for this information, based on his statements and after discussion with his family, he is being informed that he is no longer eligible for membership in Scouting." Why did he say this right before he was going to be given the award? It seems to me that he thought it was a done deal and so saying it would be "sticking it to the BSA." I can see no other reason for this ill timed revelation. He knew throughout scouting than such practices were not allowed, yet he decided to join and keep it all a secret anyway. I feel bad that he did all the work, but this knowingly deceptive behavior is not becoming of an Eagle Scout (yes, I am aware he was unaware of his orientation at age 6). An even bigger problem is the following: "he does not agree to Scouting's principle of 'Duty to God'" This is unacceptable. Every time scouts meet they recite the Pledge of Allegiance, the Scout Oath, and the Scout Law. The first 2 make explicit references to God, and the latter includes the trait of "reverence" in a list of things that a scout should be. Now I don't know if he is an atheist or not, but saying this is a huge no-no, it basically means he was lying all those years and does not believe in a core tenant of the organization's founding. On these grounds alone I support the decision. The only statement from a BSA official listed both Duty to God AND homosexuality as grounds for refusal. This thing about "he was rejected because he's gay!" is only part of the story. The only part people want to focus on. Don't join an organization you know bans these things in first place. And DON'T reveal right before the final hurdle. And the scouts are hardly evil, they have a long record of service at the national level and in the community. Whether it's the policy against homosexual scouts or the policy against non-believing scouts, it's the same thing. It's only letting certain types of people into your organization. Saying you shouldn't join an organization that doesn't permit people like you because you are a homosexual, or because you are an atheist/agnostic/etc, sounds good on paper, but there is a problem: there is no substitute for the boy scouts in most areas. If there was only one junior athletic league in a given region, and it didn't allow certain children for reasons that would be illegal in a public venture, it would be hard for the parent to explain to their child why they aren't able to play organized sports. WTF is the point of this post? I can't see any. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
I understand the point that you're trying to make; 1. Having sex is a choice 2. Having sex with a man is a choice 3. Therefore homosexuality is a choice The problem with that argument is that you're arguing from a purely individualist point of view; that is to say that every person is only the product of their own actions. Pure individualism is flawed because it doesn't account for the effects of physiology, society, and community on the individual. Modern philosophy stresses the thought that both individualism and collectivism are necessary to rational discussion on human behavior/development. My counter example would be 1. Having sex is a choice 2. Having sex is prefaced by arousal (barring rape/prostitution in the general sense) 3. Arousal is determined by the social scripts of the individual, their community, and their own experience and current environment. 4. Therefore arousal is not determined solely by the individual (and doubtless not in any sense simplistic enough to be labelled a 'choice') 5. Therefore sexual orientation is not a 'choice' in the way you present it. | ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On October 11 2012 23:04 micronesia wrote: Whether it's the policy against homosexual scouts or the policy against non-believing scouts, it's the same thing. It's only letting certain types of people into your organization. Saying you shouldn't join an organization that doesn't permit people like you because you are a homosexual, or because you are an atheist/agnostic/etc, sounds good on paper, but there is a problem: there is no substitute for the boy scouts in most areas. If there was only one junior athletic league in a given region, and it didn't allow certain children for reasons that would be illegal in a public venture, it would be hard for the parent to explain to their child why they aren't able to play organized sports. WTF is the point of this post? I can't see any. Don't the Girl Scouts allow boys to join now? They'd make a pretty good alternative...a better one I'd say since their cookies are so damn delicious. Ideally people would flip the bird to the boy scouts and all start joining the girl scouts instead and the boy scouts would be pushed to the margins of society with racists and misogynists. But in reality, the troop level is so distant from the national leadership that no one will really turn the troops into pariah's and so the national leadership will still have a platform from which to be idiots. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
Patches Events
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
OSC
OSC
Replay Cast
Escore
CrankTV Team League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
