Boy Scouts of America and Homosexuals - Page 9

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.

On October 10 2012 13:18 Djzapz wrote:

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.

On October 10 2012 11:26 Belha wrote:


Kinda this.

I'm have zero problem with gays. I have some gay friends/knowns too. But Jesus crist, i'm fking tired of reading people trying to make it look like a normal thing. Go find "normal", "regular", "natural" in the dictionary.
And the antonym of normal, is abnormal. Being gay is indeed abnormal. Accept it.
I repeat, i have nothing aganist gay people, gay marriage, or whatever.

What have indeed became normal is commenting "gay=normal" for pure political , bureaucratic and demagogic purposes (like TV ""stars"" and politicians....yes, the best people in the world...). This is sad.

EDIT: Oh and about the "genetic tendence" vs "learned behavior", i'm honestly fking tired. Why? So-called "legit" studies keep coming sustaining both theories ¬¬

On October 10 2012 13:20 dAPhREAk wrote:

i have a problem with the trend of people/government deciding how other people should think, or what they should believe.

On October 10 2012 13:33 Djzapz wrote:

I don't have a problem when it has to do making sure some people don't get treated like inferior citizen. Government shouldn't dictate what people think - the dislike of homosexuals can't be legislated about, but the discrimination of those people, who some years ago were treated as subhumans, seems important to me.

It's easy when you're not affected personally to just say it's fine, though. But it's lazy.

On October 10 2012 13:38 dAPhREAk wrote:

nobody has a problem forcing their beliefs on others when they feel their beliefs are justified. thats the whole problem.

On October 10 2012 13:40 MountainDewJunkie wrote:

Okay, I doth hear thee, but what is the limit of the level of intolerance we are supposed to tolerate?

On October 09 2012 01:12 Zealos wrote:

Agreed, it's the worst part of democracy too. The thought that people like this vote makes me quite pessimistic for the human race.

On October 10 2012 13:38 dAPhREAk wrote:

nobody has a problem forcing their beliefs on others when they feel their beliefs are justified. thats the whole problem.

On October 10 2012 13:45 dAPhREAk wrote:

thats the fun part, you dont have to tolerate it. you get to boycott them and voice your opinion about their homophobia.

i actually dropped out of boy scouts because of the gay rights issue because i felt it was wrong. i showed them!

On October 10 2012 13:53 MountainDewJunkie wrote:

But the primary purpose of boycotting and protest is usually to influence policy changes! But you said earlier that you don't want the government telling people how to think, implying you are against policy changes regarding discrimination?

On October 10 2012 13:52 Djzapz wrote:

That's an easy argument to make, "do nothing". But I'm not about to force my beliefs onto anybody, except my frankly basic belief that we're equals and should be treated as such. I don't want to be part of a society which gives more importance to the right to treat others as subhumans than to the right to being treated fairly.

And if your principles lead to that kind of shit (and they do), maybe your ideals are more moral than practical. And that's fucking useless.

On October 10 2012 13:55 dAPhREAk wrote:

i am against the gov't telling people what to do. i am not against you changing policies at BSA. take Chick-Fil-A for example. what certain local gov'ts did was bullshit (telling them they cant open up stores in the areas); people doing sit-ins and boycotts, etc. was great!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/09/19/chick_fil_a_gay_marriage_chicken_chain_appears_to_quietly_change_winshape_foundation_strategy_.html

On October 10 2012 14:01 MountainDewJunkie wrote:

So you're for people influencing individual entities' (businesses, clubs, etc.) policies but against the government getting directly involved, yes? I'm just trying to pinpoint your position, nothing more.

On October 10 2012 14:05 dAPhREAk wrote:

im all for people who have open dialogue on these issues, and all for people doing whatever they want (legally) to fight what they consider intolerance. sending letters to BSA to tell them they are asshats, boycotting girl scout cookies because they hate lesbians, telling news media that BSA are homophobes, etc. im all for BSA telling homosexuals that they do not fit within their religious beliefs and dont belong in their private little group of heteros. what im not for is the BSA going to the government and saying we need some legislation to force all members to disclose their sexual preference so we can ban their asses, and that there be criminal penalties for failing to do so. (totally turned that shit around on you guys!!) im also not for groups of homosexuals going to the government and saying fuck BSA's religious beliefs, make them let us join and make our kids eagle scouts. i find that quite unproductive.

so, there are my squishy positions in 30 secs or less. i should probably proofread this because you are going to nitpick, but i dont really feel like it. =D

On October 10 2012 14:08 MountainDewJunkie wrote:

A "Yes" would have worked too

No nitpicking, I just disagree slightly and I'll leave it at that

On October 10 2012 14:09 dAPhREAk wrote:

;-)

you still have the most awesome name on tl.net. not sure how many times i told you that already.

On October 10 2012 14:54 Whitewing wrote:


No it isn't okay for them to stick to their views, because they are receiving government funding and benefits.