|
On October 09 2012 02:57 deth2munkies wrote:
It's not just that, there's passages in Revelation condemning one of the churches for allowing homosexuality, saying it will bring them to ruin, there's another passage in one of the Corinthians saying explicitly, "Flee from homosexuality", there's more but I'm too lazy to look it up for some random jackoff that hasn't read the Bible and claims to know everything it says.
I'm making the assumption I know which passages you refer to (there is a passage in each that often pops up when it comes to homosexuality).
The one in Corinthians (1:6-9): "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God".
The problem with this one is that arsenokoites can and have been argued to be homosexuals, but it could also be male prostitutions (making the sin in question prostitution, not homosexuality).
Revelations (21:8): "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." (King James Bible).
Whoremongers have been translated as sexual sinners, whoremongers, fornicators and other such things, meaning there's still a lot of debate whether its actually meant to be homosexuals, or something else.
In short: Its not that easy to say. If you wish to, you can argue that homosexuality is forbidden, but its just as easy to argue it isn't.
|
This is getting way off topic. But, Jesus never mentions homosexuality in his ministry; if it such a big deal why did he not address it?
|
On October 09 2012 03:08 micronesia wrote:
There are female leaders in the BSA, and the majority of females are heterosexual, so just stop with the whole discussion on whether or not gay male leaders are more likely to molest scouts. And most rapes are committed by males, so stop trying to impose your own views on the discussion.
(I don't actually have a position on whether the fear of pedophilia is a good reason for banning gay Boy Scout leaders, by the way, but I think that it's a legitimate subject of discussion and that censoring the conversation is a great way to validate your own opinions, but a lousy way to have an intelligent debate about something.)
|
If Bsa dont want gay scouts, its their right and noone should complain about it.
Its a private organisation and they can set wichever rules they want.
If it needs to be changed it is the bsa and its members who are the ones who should decide to do so.
If you want to have a sort of scouting organisation wich do allow gay people you are completely free to start an organisation for yourself, where you can set the rules.
Tollerance goes both ways you know.
Not only should straight people accept that there is a gay community, and organisations and clubs specifically aimed at gays.
Gay people should as well accept that there are communitys wich think different, and who have their own organisations and clubs, aimed at straight people.
The bsa could be considered one of such organisations, it is a verry conservative organisation.
Stop trying to enforce your believes on everyone in society, just respect that there are differences.
If not happy with a club or organisation, start your own club.
But all this people, who are not even in Bsa themselves, having an opinnion about how the bsa should be, its just beyond silly.
Dont you see you are doing exactly that what you are claiming to attack?
Beeing intollerant and trying to change people who think differently then you.
|
On October 09 2012 02:35 qrs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 00:47 neversummer wrote:
Secondly I applaud them for maintaining their position in the midst of criticism from the community. I second this. I believe that individuals (which includes organizations of individuals) should be free to make their own choices.
Isn't the BSA still partially funded by the government? And doesn't this influence the freedom they have to discriminate against gays?
|
On October 09 2012 00:45 micronesia wrote:
When you say don't support the BSA, do you mean don't support your local troops, or just don't publicly support the national organization? Keep in mind it's mainly the idiots at the national level that are making such a big deal out of this... the local troops and in many cases county-level leaders are not proponents of this policy.
This is basically how I view this issue as well.
I am an Eagle Scout, I'm also a heterosexual, yet my home troop, Troop 101 has never had any discriminatory practices against homosexuals and neither has my home council either that I'm aware of.
Just because a single part of the organization has this particular stance doesn't mean the every single member of the BSA should be at fault. The people directly responsible should be held accountable and should be receiving their just criticism, but to bash the entire BSA is overkill considering all of the other good things that it does for young men and their development.
I wouldn't be the same man I am today were it not for my time spent in Boy Scouts. Ironically I found I learned a lot more about cooperation with my fellow man, even if I didn't necessarily like him through scouting than I have through any other team building organization. The anti-gay stance that some organizations have taken goes completely against many of the fundamental principles I learned in my time with the organization, and I'd love to tell those people that if I ever get the chance to speak to them.
|
As for distinguishing "the board" with the "local communities", try applying that logic to the former Nazi Germany and you'll suddenly have excused genocide.
I'm not equating the two, simply pointing out that there can be no such thing as complete separation. Yes, there are homosexuals in the BSA because not everyone believe as the board does. But if you actively abide by rules you do not believe in, then you are doing something wrong in the first place (in the sense that you cannot 100% justify it, unless you lie to yourself). If you believe in these rules, then, well, then all the "pepper" is not misdirected.
I'm Not saying anyone is doing anything particular that is "wrong", I do not care to judge. Simply pointing out that it isn't always right to blindly follow and hide behind the "law". It shouldn't go un-questioned and accepted as the respectable choice of action.
For instance, someone that isn't "the board" is actually doing this to a kid. This "someone" could have sided with the kid. Maybe it would have been too difficult; but if pressure from the community is a reason for difficulty, then you're once again stuck with the conclusion that the local community is to blame -- not that this is the only possibility, simply, again, saying that, at least I, won't simply condone this behaviour claiming that "some scoutmaster can't ignore someone's sexuality and therefore must abide by the board ". Then what are we left with?
|
To attempt to get back on the rails (I apologize for de-railing with the religious debate): I tend to agree with the sentiment that, as long as the BSA enjoy unique benefits provided by the state (essentially free use of parks, special permissions to use military training grounds, etc), it relinquishes the right to be treated as a purely private organization, and should be held to the same standards of equal rights as other public and semi-public institutions.
|
On October 09 2012 03:19 Cutlery wrote:
As for distinguishing "the board" with the "local communities", try applying that logic to the former Nazi Germany and you'll suddenly have excused genocide.
I'm not equating the two, simply pointing out that there can be no such thing as complete separation. Yes, there are homosexuals in the BSA because not everyone believe as the board does. But if you actively abide by rules you do not believe in, then you are doing something wrong in the first place (in the sense that you cannot 100% justify it). If you believe in these rules, then, well, then all the "pepper" is not misdirected.
This is such utter bullshit. Think about what you're saying, I mean really.
I became an Eagle Scout 8 years ago. There was no such practice against homosexuals ANYWHERE while I was a scout. This new policy that props up now 8 years after I've graduated comes as much a surprise to me a member of the BSA as it does to everyone else and I'm just as appalled as everyone else.
Are you saying I share responsibility for it? Are you saying my troop should share responsibilty for what the board does even though they don't actually enforce any sort of discriminatory policies themselves?
The Boy Scouts isn't the military, the individual troops aren't being micromanaged by the national board. What other troops do more often than not has absolutely NO bearing whatsoever on what other troops will do.
My troop is Catholic based, others are Latter Day Saints, Lutheran, Episcopalian, all of whom have different religious practices they bring into their individual troops, how would that be possible if the governing body of the BSA was able to mandate policy on the troops? It's possible because they don't.
|
On October 09 2012 03:16 WilbertK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 02:35 qrs wrote:On October 09 2012 00:47 neversummer wrote:
Secondly I applaud them for maintaining their position in the midst of criticism from the community. I second this. I believe that individuals (which includes organizations of individuals) should be free to make their own choices. Isn't the BSA still partially funded by the government? Are they? I'm no expert, but Wikipedia says "The National Council [of the BSA] is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and is funded from private donations, membership dues, corporate sponsors, and special events".
|
On October 09 2012 03:25 KiwiQuest wrote:
To attempt to get back on the rails (I apologize for de-railing with the religious debate): I tend to agree with the sentiment that, as long as the BSA enjoy unique benefits provided by the state (essentially free use of parks, special permissions to use military training grounds, etc), it relinquishes the right to be treated as a purely private organization, and should be held to the same standards of equal rights as other public and semi-public institutions.
Makes sense. If the government/public supports BSA, then they are also supporting their ideology. Hiding behind any law won't change that "detail", that "consequence".
|
On October 09 2012 03:26 qrs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 03:16 WilbertK wrote:On October 09 2012 02:35 qrs wrote:On October 09 2012 00:47 neversummer wrote:
Secondly I applaud them for maintaining their position in the midst of criticism from the community. I second this. I believe that individuals (which includes organizations of individuals) should be free to make their own choices. Isn't the BSA still partially funded by the government? Are they? I'm no expert, but Wikipedia says "The National Council [of the BSA] is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and is funded from private donations, membership dues, corporate sponsors, and special events".
As far as I can tell from what I've just read (bear in mind, some of it comes from such dubious sources as Fox news and wikipedia :p ), it doesn't specifically get funding, but it does have some unique benefits. Basically, they're allowed access to and use of government facilities, military training areas and suchlike, essentially for free. This blurs the line between private and public somewhat in my opinion.
|
United States24701 Posts
On October 09 2012 03:15 qrs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 03:08 micronesia wrote:
There are female leaders in the BSA, and the majority of females are heterosexual, so just stop with the whole discussion on whether or not gay male leaders are more likely to molest scouts. And most rapes are committed by males, Why not discuss banning men from running troops then?
so stop trying to impose your own views on the discussion. I'm pointing out that the tangent is irrelevant to the OP about how a scout is being punished. If you want to have a discussion about this in another place, it might be acceptable (obviously contingent on other factors). In fact, there already was this discussion in a previous thread.
(I don't actually have a position on whether the fear of pedophilia is a good reason for banning gay Boy Scout leaders, by the way, but I think that it's a legitimate subject of discussion and that censoring the conversation is a great way to validate your own opinions, but a lousy way to have an intelligent debate about something.) Why are you accusing me of censoring the discussion? I didn't ban anyone or close the thread because of what someone said.
I also think molestation and the like is an important thing to discuss when designing a youth organization... and that's not what some people are doing in the thread... they are either arguing about whether or not the BSA have biblical justification for discouraging homosexuality, or trying to use absent statistics to ban certain innocent groups of people from holding volunteer positions.
If you want to discuss policies like two-deep leadership then that will certainly address the concern (although once again it really isn't on the topic of denying a scout his membership/award).
|
On October 09 2012 03:18 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 00:45 micronesia wrote:
When you say don't support the BSA, do you mean don't support your local troops, or just don't publicly support the national organization? Keep in mind it's mainly the idiots at the national level that are making such a big deal out of this... the local troops and in many cases county-level leaders are not proponents of this policy. This is basically how I view this issue as well. I am an Eagle Scout, I'm also a heterosexual, yet my home troop, Troop 101 has never had any discriminatory practices against homosexuals and neither has my home council either that I'm aware of. Just because a single part of the organization has this particular stance doesn't mean the every single member of the BSA should be at fault. The people directly responsible should be held accountable and should be receiving their just criticism, but to bash the entire BSA is overkill considering all of the other good things that it does for young men and their development. I wouldn't be the same man I am today were it not for my time spent in Boy Scouts. Ironically I found I learned a lot more about cooperation with my fellow man, even if I didn't necessarily like him through scouting than I have through any other team building organization. The anti-gay stance that some organizations have taken goes completely against many of the fundamental principles I learned in my time with the organization, and I'd love to tell those people that if I ever get the chance to speak to them.
I'll answer this, as a fellow Eagle Scout, but one who supports the decision of the Board. See this post I made earlier if you're at all interested. (expect a very delayed response if you reply; I'm supposed to be working on a GIS take-home exam right now... X-D)
|
On October 09 2012 02:44 cloneThorN wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 02:30 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
Religious people will be religious people. They follow backwards ideologies based on unproven doctrine and preach it to the ignorant who will follow blindly.
Don't focus on BSA, focus on the funding from the government (I've heard it's small but any amount of money supporting bigots should be removed) and get that taken out. While i strongly agree with your first point, then i don't see the point of point 2. USA is a democratic country, so we can assume, that every law they have, or funding they have, is created by the majority of the voters(unless we take into account the dictator like "State Vote"). So if there is a majority of people who do not like these laws, then we can assume that the majority didn't vote before said law/fund was made. And in my opinion, then people who do not vote should have ZERO politcal influence for the remainder of the reign of the guy/party who got voted in. This include everyone ofc. I've tried not voting before, simply because all the options would in my opinion wreck the country. So i just lay off all political responsibility, and when the country is fucked, then i will blame them, and try to do things my way.
No one "votes on laws"... You vote on someone to represent you, that doesn't mean they always will (almost always the case). Add that onto the fact that homosexuality is now nationally recognized in America (not "don't ask don't tell" being removed) and you have a guideline that is completely unethical and against what people obviously think such that tax money shouldn't be allocated there.
A free private organization can ban non-white's and I'd be absolutely fine with them being bigots off the system but when you fund through taxpayers money then you have an issue.
|
On October 09 2012 03:36 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 03:18 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 09 2012 00:45 micronesia wrote:
When you say don't support the BSA, do you mean don't support your local troops, or just don't publicly support the national organization? Keep in mind it's mainly the idiots at the national level that are making such a big deal out of this... the local troops and in many cases county-level leaders are not proponents of this policy. This is basically how I view this issue as well. I am an Eagle Scout, I'm also a heterosexual, yet my home troop, Troop 101 has never had any discriminatory practices against homosexuals and neither has my home council either that I'm aware of. Just because a single part of the organization has this particular stance doesn't mean the every single member of the BSA should be at fault. The people directly responsible should be held accountable and should be receiving their just criticism, but to bash the entire BSA is overkill considering all of the other good things that it does for young men and their development. I wouldn't be the same man I am today were it not for my time spent in Boy Scouts. Ironically I found I learned a lot more about cooperation with my fellow man, even if I didn't necessarily like him through scouting than I have through any other team building organization. The anti-gay stance that some organizations have taken goes completely against many of the fundamental principles I learned in my time with the organization, and I'd love to tell those people that if I ever get the chance to speak to them. I'll answer this, as a fellow Eagle Scout, but one who supports the decision of the Board. See this post I made earlier if you're at all interested. (expect a very delayed response if you reply; I'm supposed to be working on a GIS take-home exam right now... X-D)
Your reasoning is that because it isn't the BSA's place to teach values regarding sexuality that they should exclude any openly gay boy from being a part of the organization.
I don't see how that reasoning follows to that conclusion. You're still essentially discriminating against one person and not the others.
|
On October 09 2012 03:36 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 03:18 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 09 2012 00:45 micronesia wrote:
When you say don't support the BSA, do you mean don't support your local troops, or just don't publicly support the national organization? Keep in mind it's mainly the idiots at the national level that are making such a big deal out of this... the local troops and in many cases county-level leaders are not proponents of this policy. This is basically how I view this issue as well. I am an Eagle Scout, I'm also a heterosexual, yet my home troop, Troop 101 has never had any discriminatory practices against homosexuals and neither has my home council either that I'm aware of. Just because a single part of the organization has this particular stance doesn't mean the every single member of the BSA should be at fault. The people directly responsible should be held accountable and should be receiving their just criticism, but to bash the entire BSA is overkill considering all of the other good things that it does for young men and their development. I wouldn't be the same man I am today were it not for my time spent in Boy Scouts. Ironically I found I learned a lot more about cooperation with my fellow man, even if I didn't necessarily like him through scouting than I have through any other team building organization. The anti-gay stance that some organizations have taken goes completely against many of the fundamental principles I learned in my time with the organization, and I'd love to tell those people that if I ever get the chance to speak to them. I'll answer this, as a fellow Eagle Scout, but one who supports the decision of the Board. See this post I made earlier if you're at all interested. (expect a very delayed response if you reply; I'm supposed to be working on a GIS take-home exam right now... X-D)
You're advocating DADT for the boy scouts........lol
|
This leads to a predicament I'm currently facing.
My mom's father and both of her brothers were Eagle Scouts and active in scouting for a long time, so when I was growing up that was something she wanted me to do. I eventually got my Eagle, and I'm now looking for programming jobs. My question is whether or not this is something that I should put on my resume.
I'm from Mississippi, and my own personal feeling is that being an Eagle scout is something that would be looked on positively by most employers throughout the South, particularly in more rural settings. However, this isn't really the sort of environment I'm looking for jobs in.
On one hand, I feel like I put a lot of work into my Eagle, and I always had people constantly telling me, "this is something you'll be able to put on your resume for the rest of your life." But, my goal is to get a job, and if putting that on a resume will have a negative effect on how I'm viewed, it's not worth it. I have zero interest in getting into a political debate about the BSA's policies during an interview.
|
United States24701 Posts
Zyufin I have no background to answer your question but despite all that's going on I don't think Eagles are looked down upon by the community. I would suggest putting it.
|
On October 09 2012 03:44 Zyufin wrote:
This leads to a predicament I'm currently facing.
My mom's father and both of her brothers were Eagle Scouts and active in scouting for a long time, so when I was growing up that was something she wanted me to do. I eventually got my Eagle, and I'm now looking for programming jobs. My question is whether or not this is something that I should put on my resume.
I'm from Mississippi, and my own personal feeling is that being an Eagle scout is something that would be looked on positively by most employers throughout the South, particularly in more rural settings. However, this isn't really the sort of environment I'm looking for jobs in.
On one hand, I feel like I put a lot of work into my Eagle, and I always had people constantly telling me, "this is something you'll be able to put on your resume for the rest of your life." But, my goal is to get a job, and if putting that on a resume will have a negative effect on how I'm viewed, it's not worth it. I have zero interest in getting into a political debate about the BSA's policies during an interview.
I've never had this problem; all of the interviews I've had thus far and the few dozen times I've mentioned it hasn't sparked any debate at all. In fact, I've only received positive remarks for it.
On October 09 2012 03:39 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 03:36 cLAN.Anax wrote:On October 09 2012 03:18 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 09 2012 00:45 micronesia wrote:
When you say don't support the BSA, do you mean don't support your local troops, or just don't publicly support the national organization? Keep in mind it's mainly the idiots at the national level that are making such a big deal out of this... the local troops and in many cases county-level leaders are not proponents of this policy. This is basically how I view this issue as well. I am an Eagle Scout, I'm also a heterosexual, yet my home troop, Troop 101 has never had any discriminatory practices against homosexuals and neither has my home council either that I'm aware of. Just because a single part of the organization has this particular stance doesn't mean the every single member of the BSA should be at fault. The people directly responsible should be held accountable and should be receiving their just criticism, but to bash the entire BSA is overkill considering all of the other good things that it does for young men and their development. I wouldn't be the same man I am today were it not for my time spent in Boy Scouts. Ironically I found I learned a lot more about cooperation with my fellow man, even if I didn't necessarily like him through scouting than I have through any other team building organization. The anti-gay stance that some organizations have taken goes completely against many of the fundamental principles I learned in my time with the organization, and I'd love to tell those people that if I ever get the chance to speak to them. I'll answer this, as a fellow Eagle Scout, but one who supports the decision of the Board. See this post I made earlier if you're at all interested. (expect a very delayed response if you reply; I'm supposed to be working on a GIS take-home exam right now... X-D) Your reasoning is that because it isn't the BSA's place to teach values regarding sexuality that they should exclude any openly gay boy from being a part of the organization. I don't see how that reasoning follows to that conclusion. You're still essentially discriminating against one person and not the others.
Along with openly promiscuous heterosexual boys too. Issues of sexuality, religion, politics, and the like are recognized by the Scouts as topics that are best left to the parents of the boy to discuss. When brought into Scouting events and activities, they only serve to cause strife where there does not need to be any.
It would not surprise me to learn that one or more of my fellow Scouts was gay. I do not know this as fact, but I could surmise as much. The fact that we did not bother to ask if they were gay/promiscuous/etc. and focused instead on learning the skills taught at camp is, I'd argue, the reason why you and I learned more about cooperation with our fellow man. I learned not to distract myself with unnecessary strife over who someone's had sex with (gay, straight, or otherwise) because it was not pertinent to what we did in the Scouts. Not bringing it up in the first place was massively helpful in this regard. I wish I could word this better, but that's the best way I can explain it.
I told you about the massive double standard as well. I don't like it any more than the rest of the commenters in this thread.
vvv @zyufin's second post:
+ Show Spoiler +Sorry. I couldn't resist. :-D ![[image loading]](http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h453/MrAnaximander/TL-BoyScouts-DuckDynasty.jpg) imgur's down, so I had to use Photobucket. Sorry again. T_T
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
