BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future.Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
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.
On October 09 2012 00:43 MooMu wrote: [Christians of the board, do you really fucking think God gives a damn whether or not you like to stick your pecker in another man's ass? Do you consider all that savage shit in the OT divine and true?
Woah..as much as i agree, thats a bit rude.
And theres no talking to devout religious people about these things, believe me.
First of all I don't think anyone is supporting the Boy Scouts of America.
Secondly I applaud them for maintaining their position in the midst of criticism from the community; I've never really cared for what is "politically" correct and quite frankly I don't think gay men should be prancing around with large groups of 8-10 year old boys.
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. As well, the OP could use a little less rhetoric and maybe just post throughout the thread as to not draw angery attention to yourself. It's understandable to be frustrated, but being that the ones making such ridiculous decisions are unreasonable as it is, there's really no communicating with them on a logical level in terms of religion.
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. As well, the OP could use a little less rhetoric and maybe just post throughout the thread as to not draw angery attention to yourself. It's understandable to be frustrated, but being that the ones making such ridiculous decisions are unreasonable as it is, there's really no communicating with them on a logical level in terms of religion.
Doesn't that mean you're stuck with rhetoric and emotional appeals?
On October 09 2012 00:47 neversummer wrote: First of all I don't think anyone is supporting the Boy Scouts of America.
Secondly I applaud them for maintaining their position in the midst of criticism from the community; I've never really cared for what is "politically" correct and quite frankly I don't think gay men should be prancing around with large groups of 8-10 year old boys.
Yeah, and heterosexual men shouldn't be able to do anything with little girls either... Are you joking man? Prancing? Really?
This whole thing is stupid, they're just being homophobes. They can do what they want, but that doesn't mean they should hate.
And the OP's language is a little vulgar.... Doesn't really help make your point imo, kind of hurts it actually.
On October 09 2012 00:47 neversummer wrote: First of all I don't think anyone is supporting the Boy Scouts of America.
Secondly I applaud them for maintaining their position in the midst of criticism from the community; I've never really cared for what is "politically" correct and quite frankly I don't think gay men should be prancing around with large groups of 8-10 year old boys.
The BSA doesn't have 8-10 year old boys in it... it starts at like 6-7th grade.
Your comment isn't related to a gay scout being able to advance in the organization... you are talking about the leadership which is two different things.
Sticking with leadership though, why is a gay male more of a threat to the scouts than a heterosexual female? Are gays more likely to be rapists than heterosexual females (which often help lead in the BSA) or male leaders in the girl scouts?
Why do you call it 'prancing around' when it's a gay man? If it was a heterosexual man dedicated his free time to help run a troop, would it be 'prancing around' then?
There are regulations in place to prevent sexual misconduct in the BSA. I hear about gays being punished/ejected by the BSA from time to time, but I don't hear about the ones who kept their sexuality (and therefore apparent rapists' personality, as you imply) a secret getting caught only after going on a raping binge.
If you want to support the BSA in their legal right to discriminate, that is your right as well. But if you are going to try to justify your opinion on this forum, be prepared for us to call you out on your idiocy (I doubt I'm the only person who has commented as I type this)
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. As well, the OP could use a little less rhetoric and maybe just post throughout the thread as to not draw angery attention to yourself. It's understandable to be frustrated, but being that the ones making such ridiculous decisions are unreasonable as it is, there's really no communicating with them on a logical level in terms of religion.
Doesn't that mean you're stuck with rhetoric and emotional appeals?
You're stuck with less than that. They're beyond rhetoric and emotional appeals because it's like you're speaking a different language to them. It would be like trying to communicate understanding and peace to the WBC (Westboro Baptist Church). It's just completely outside their understanding.
On October 09 2012 00:47 neversummer wrote: quite frankly I don't think gay men should be prancing around with large groups of 8-10 year old boys.
Wow. I didn't think people would be this dedicated to displaying their ignorance on a forum like TL. Pretty interesting actually!
You do realise that pedophilia and homosexuality has nothing whatsoever to do with each other, right?
Does this also mean that the heterosexual man/woman can't take care of kids of the opposite sex?
As for the topic, it really blows my mind that there are some parts of the western world where this ridiculous attitude to your fellow man still exists. Even more so when it comes to a group of such official status.
On October 09 2012 00:43 MooMu wrote: I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future. Maybe also add "For the Living Christ" as an addendum.
Christians of the board, do you really fucking think God gives a damn whether or not you like to stick your pecker in another man's ass? Do you consider all that savage shit in the OT divine and true?
The first two lines of the OP, I was fine with, then there's this big chunk of flame bait.
I'm not Christian, but posting this article seems like an excuse to go on a mudslinging trip...
I sent the OP a pm asking him to tone it back (almost immediately after he posted it), but if he doesn't react soon I'm going to close the thread (if another staff member doesn't beat me to it). It's not really a new discussion, and OP's should be expected to keep an eye on their thread, at least for a few minutes after posting it!
28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[f] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[g] There is no commandment greater than these.” Loving your neighbor by telling them homosexuality is wrong is like loving your neighbor by telling them they're ugly.
On October 09 2012 00:47 neversummer wrote: quite frankly I don't think gay men should be prancing around with large groups of 8-10 year old boys.
Wow. I didn't think people would be this dedicated to displaying their ignorance on a forum like TL. Pretty interesting actually!
You do realise that pedophilia and homosexuality has nothing whatsoever to do with each other, right?
Does this also mean that the heterosexual man/woman can't take care of kids of the opposite sex?
As for the topic, it really blows my mind that there are some parts of the western world where this ridiculous attitude to your fellow man still exists. Even more so when it comes to a group of such official status.
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 09 2012 00:47 neversummer wrote: First of all I don't think anyone is supporting the Boy Scouts of America.
Secondly I applaud them for maintaining their position in the midst of criticism from the community; I've never really cared for what is "politically" correct and quite frankly I don't think gay men should be prancing around with large groups of 8-10 year old boys.
troll or no? if not: I would be fine if you said "I don't believe in gay rights and I believe homosexuality in the Boy Scouts is wrong." But your post is terrible. I am hoping you are just a dumbass and have little control of the English language.
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.
As long as they are affiliated, no support for any of them.
I know people will differ like those good Catholics that still retain their faith in the Church but support none of their edicts. Andrew Sullivan comes to mind right away. In any case, voice your displeasure at all times.
This should really be closed and be resubmitted in a more civil manner as the way it stands is not giving a good discussion, rather just huge amount of disgusting mudslinging. It's a real issue and as an Eagle Scout I am concerned by how the national leadership does some stuff that I do not agree with, but this is not the way to discuss it.
On October 09 2012 01:21 rackdude wrote: This should really be closed and be resubmitted in a more civil manner as the way it stands is not giving a good discussion, rather just huge amount of disgusting mudslinging. It's a real issue and as an Eagle Scout I am concerned by how the national leadership does some stuff that I do not agree with, but this is not the way to discuss it.
This ain't personal. Understand your status is being sullied by your leadership and they're the ones slinging the nastiest mud.
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.
As long as they are affiliated, no support for any of them.
I know people will differ like those good Catholics that still retain their faith in the Church but support none of their edicts. Andrew Sullivan comes to mind right away. In any case, voice your displeasure at all times.
The problem with this mindset is that you are now playing chicken with a few idiots who will probably not yield any time soon. A 'no support for anything BSA related' stance will more likely mean the destruction of an otherwise very good youth program (of which there is no substitute) than result in a reversal of this backwards policy.
If you have a way to fix the problem then go for it, but I don't think this will work.
On October 09 2012 01:21 rackdude wrote: This should really be closed and be resubmitted in a more civil manner as the way it stands is not giving a good discussion, rather just huge amount of disgusting mudslinging. It's a real issue and as an Eagle Scout I am concerned by how the national leadership does some stuff that I do not agree with, but this is not the way to discuss it.
This ain't personal. Understand your status is being sullied by your leadership and they're the ones slinging the nastiest mud.
That doesn't excuse you from an awful, biased OP. Your rhetoric is clearly showing, and I would kindly ask you to refrain from it if you're going to initiate threads on emotionally-divisive issues such as this.
I said this back in the "Gay Scout Resolution" thread, and I'll re-post it here with a small addition.
When I was a younger Boy Scout, we also didn't mention politics or even differing religions for that matter, because we knew that we each had our separate opinions on the matter and knew to let the parents talk to thier kids about those issues. BSA expects Mom and Dad to explain how sex works and what differing political opinions and religious beliefs are and what homosexuality is. Someone who is openly expressive of their sexuality, in my opinion, should not be tolerated, hetero- or homosexual; Boy Scouts isn't the place for it. There is a double standard on this, as I heard far more than my fair share of heterosexuality (boys will be boys...), but I disapprove of it just as ardently. Basically, BSA doesn't want to deal with any of it, because they believe it's not their place. To be honest, a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is acceptable here in my opinion, for any sexual orientation. I know it's not popular, but those are family issues (homosexuality, teenage promiscuity, etc.), and they should remain as such if you ask me.
I "shrug" at the notion that Johnny is gay or Timmy is sexually promiscuous or Spike is Muslim. Yes, I'll disagree with them on a moral level. But we can still be in the same Patrol together and get along just fine because we can set those things off to the side when we get together for meetings and go on campouts, etc.
As for this particular story, I actually do not believe that the Scouts rejected this man's Eagle Scout award for him being homosexual, but probably because he was vocal, public, or both about his homosexuality. Given the nature of his Eagle Project too, I imagine he used this "tolerance wall" as a pretty blatant way to come out about it.
From the article in the OP:
"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."
The most personal questions I ever got asked about when I went to my Eagle Board of Review, were if I was active in my religion, as per the Scout Oath ("To God and my Country") and if I would strive to remain "Reverent," as part of the Scout Law. I think Mr. Andersen is an honest and exemplary young man whose project, on its face, sounds worthy of recognition. I have no reason to believe he's a horrible person or anything like that. But he willfully disobeyed one of Scouting's most important tenets. Because of this, I stand by the Board's decision.
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.
As long as they are affiliated, no support for any of them.
I know people will differ like those good Catholics that still retain their faith in the Church but support none of their edicts. Andrew Sullivan comes to mind right away. In any case, voice your displeasure at all times.
The problem with this mindset is that you are now playing chicken with a few idiots who will probably not yield any time soon. A 'no support for anything BSA related' stance will more likely mean the destruction of an otherwise very good youth program (of which there is no substitute) than result in a reversal of this backwards policy.
If you have a way to fix the problem then go for it, but I don't think this will work.
Nothing on the scale of the Boy Scouts but alternatives do exist.
Camp Fire USA? Some limited Science-oriented organizations that do outdoorsy stuff as well.
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.
As long as they are affiliated, no support for any of them.
I know people will differ like those good Catholics that still retain their faith in the Church but support none of their edicts. Andrew Sullivan comes to mind right away. In any case, voice your displeasure at all times.
The problem with this mindset is that you are now playing chicken with a few idiots who will probably not yield any time soon. A 'no support for anything BSA related' stance will more likely mean the destruction of an otherwise very good youth program (of which there is no substitute) than result in a reversal of this backwards policy.
If you have a way to fix the problem then go for it, but I don't think this will work.
Nothing on the scale of the Boy Scouts but alternatives do exist.
Camp Fire USA? Some limited Science-oriented organizations that do outdoorsy stuff as well.
Surely the BSA is not the only youth program that uses outdoorsy activities to try and help develop young men into fine adults.
However, just because some alternatives exist in some cases doesn't mean my point doesn't stand. There is a need for things like the BSA, and while some changes are clearly needed, I don't think a 'boycott' is the right way to go about it.
On October 09 2012 01:21 rackdude wrote: This should really be closed and be resubmitted in a more civil manner as the way it stands is not giving a good discussion, rather just huge amount of disgusting mudslinging. It's a real issue and as an Eagle Scout I am concerned by how the national leadership does some stuff that I do not agree with, but this is not the way to discuss it.
This ain't personal. Understand your status is being sullied by your leadership and they're the ones slinging the nastiest mud.
That doesn't excuse you from an awful, biased OP. Your rhetoric is clearly showing, and I would kindly ask you to refrain from it if you're going to initiate threads on emotionally-divisive issues such as this.
I said this back in the "Gay Scout Resolution" thread, and I'll re-post it here with a small addition.
When I was a younger Boy Scout, we also didn't mention politics or even differing religions for that matter, because we knew that we each had our separate opinions on the matter and knew to let the parents talk to thier kids about those issues. BSA expects Mom and Dad to explain how sex works and what differing political opinions and religious beliefs are and what homosexuality is. Someone who is openly expressive of their sexuality, in my opinion, should not be tolerated, hetero- or homosexual; Boy Scouts isn't the place for it. There is a double standard on this, as I heard far more than my fair share of heterosexuality (boys will be boys...), but I disapprove of it just as ardently. Basically, BSA doesn't want to deal with any of it, because they believe it's not their place. To be honest, a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is acceptable here in my opinion, for any sexual orientation. I know it's not popular, but those are family issues (homosexuality, teenage promiscuity, etc.), and they should remain as such if you ask me.
I "shrug" at the notion that Johnny is gay or Timmy is sexually promiscuous or Spike is Muslim. Yes, I'll disagree with them on a moral level. But we can still be in the same Patrol together and get along just fine because we can set those things off to the side when we get together for meetings and go on campouts, etc.
As for this particular story, I actually do not believe that the Scouts rejected this man's Eagle Scout award for him being homosexual, but probably because he was vocal, public, or both about his homosexuality. Given the nature of his Eagle Project too, I imagine he used this "tolerance wall" as a pretty blatant way to come out about it.
"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."
The most personal questions I ever got asked about when I went to my Eagle Board of Review, were if I was active in my religion, as per the Scout Oath ("To God and my Country") and if I would strive to remain "Reverent," as part of the Scout Law. I think Mr. Andersen is an honest and exemplary young man whose project, on its face, sounds worthy of recognition. I have no reason to believe he's a horrible person or anything like that. But he willfully disobeyed one of Scouting's most important tenets. Because of this, I stand by the Board's decision.
They can do whatever they want, and I said I respect their decision as a private organization. I don't respect their policies, and hence the group.
Now, they're silence on sexual molesters in their midst (Canada - don't know about the States)... that's a decision or lack thereof that I don't respect.
On October 09 2012 00:47 neversummer wrote: First of all I don't think anyone is supporting the Boy Scouts of America.
Secondly I applaud them for maintaining their position in the midst of criticism from the community; I've never really cared for what is "politically" correct and quite frankly I don't think gay men should be prancing around with large groups of 8-10 year old boys.
Yeah, and heterosexual men shouldn't be able to do anything with little girls either... Are you joking man? Prancing? Really?
This whole thing is stupid, they're just being homophobes. They can do what they want, but that doesn't mean they should hate.
And the OP's language is a little vulgar.... Doesn't really help make your point imo, kind of hurts it actually.
On October 09 2012 00:47 neversummer wrote: quite frankly I don't think gay men should be prancing around with large groups of 8-10 year old boys.
Wow. I didn't think people would be this dedicated to displaying their ignorance on a forum like TL. Pretty interesting actually!
You do realise that pedophilia and homosexuality has nothing whatsoever to do with each other, right?
Does this also mean that the heterosexual man/woman can't take care of kids of the opposite sex?
As for the topic, it really blows my mind that there are some parts of the western world where this ridiculous attitude to your fellow man still exists. Even more so when it comes to a group of such official status.
I think you guys are really being too harsh on this neversummer guy. I'm a gay guy and honestly it doesn't help us when you call someone an idiot or a horrible person just because of their views on homosexuality. Granted some of you guys tried to explain logically to the guy why his point of view doesn't make much sense, but don't you think that simply being aggressive to someone for expressing their point of view is counter productive? He'll probably just come to think it's more of the gay agenda propagating people's minds and feel even angrier that he can't express his point of view without being treated like some kind of asshole. You'll never make someone understanding by forcing your views onto them.
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.
neversummer is just as human as you are. Basically you are saying you don't like democracy because people who disagree with you are granted the freedom to vote. Doesn't that seem childish to you?
I think the Boy Scouts should have the freedom to make someone leave on the grounds of homosexuality, because if they are a private organization, they have the right to pick and choose who they allow to stay there. If anything it makes me proud to read that 10 other leaders left when one of them was forced to leave due to his homosexuality. Maybe it will make the Boy Scouts realize that if the same people who were just as important to their organization as the gay man thought it was wrong to fire someone on such grounds, they should reconsider their views on homosexuality.
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.
As long as they are affiliated, no support for any of them.
I know people will differ like those good Catholics that still retain their faith in the Church but support none of their edicts. Andrew Sullivan comes to mind right away. In any case, voice your displeasure at all times.
The problem with this mindset is that you are now playing chicken with a few idiots who will probably not yield any time soon. A 'no support for anything BSA related' stance will more likely mean the destruction of an otherwise very good youth program (of which there is no substitute) than result in a reversal of this backwards policy.
If you have a way to fix the problem then go for it, but I don't think this will work.
Nothing on the scale of the Boy Scouts but alternatives do exist.
Camp Fire USA? Some limited Science-oriented organizations that do outdoorsy stuff as well.
Surely the BSA is not the only youth program that uses outdoorsy activities to try and help develop young men into fine adults.
However, just because some alternatives exist in some cases doesn't mean my point doesn't stand. There is a need for things like the BSA, and while some changes are clearly needed, I don't think a 'boycott' is the right way to go about it.
Hm boycott looks kind of like boy scout.
OK. That change needs a change of leadership and with its history, it's gonna be a slug.
On October 09 2012 00:47 neversummer wrote: First of all I don't think anyone is supporting the Boy Scouts of America.
Secondly I applaud them for maintaining their position in the midst of criticism from the community; I've never really cared for what is "politically" correct and quite frankly I don't think gay men should be prancing around with large groups of 8-10 year old boys.
Boy Scouts are 12+. You're thinking of Cub Scouts. I'm guessing this is being posted again due to the story from the west coast I believe which isn't concerned with gay leaders but rather with gay scouts. This is stemming from a Scout who finished his Eagle project/all his requirements and the local board won't give him his Eagle because he's gay and atheist.
On October 09 2012 01:21 rackdude wrote: This should really be closed and be resubmitted in a more civil manner as the way it stands is not giving a good discussion, rather just huge amount of disgusting mudslinging. It's a real issue and as an Eagle Scout I am concerned by how the national leadership does some stuff that I do not agree with, but this is not the way to discuss it.
This ain't personal. Understand your status is being sullied by your leadership and they're the ones slinging the nastiest mud.
That doesn't excuse you from an awful, biased OP. Your rhetoric is clearly showing, and I would kindly ask you to refrain from it if you're going to initiate threads on emotionally-divisive issues such as this.
I said this back in the "Gay Scout Resolution" thread, and I'll re-post it here with a small addition.
When I was a younger Boy Scout, we also didn't mention politics or even differing religions for that matter, because we knew that we each had our separate opinions on the matter and knew to let the parents talk to thier kids about those issues. BSA expects Mom and Dad to explain how sex works and what differing political opinions and religious beliefs are and what homosexuality is. Someone who is openly expressive of their sexuality, in my opinion, should not be tolerated, hetero- or homosexual; Boy Scouts isn't the place for it. There is a double standard on this, as I heard far more than my fair share of heterosexuality (boys will be boys...), but I disapprove of it just as ardently. Basically, BSA doesn't want to deal with any of it, because they believe it's not their place. To be honest, a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is acceptable here in my opinion, for any sexual orientation. I know it's not popular, but those are family issues (homosexuality, teenage promiscuity, etc.), and they should remain as such if you ask me.
I "shrug" at the notion that Johnny is gay or Timmy is sexually promiscuous or Spike is Muslim. Yes, I'll disagree with them on a moral level. But we can still be in the same Patrol together and get along just fine because we can set those things off to the side when we get together for meetings and go on campouts, etc.
As for this particular story, I actually do not believe that the Scouts rejected this man's Eagle Scout award for him being homosexual, but probably because he was vocal, public, or both about his homosexuality. Given the nature of his Eagle Project too, I imagine he used this "tolerance wall" as a pretty blatant way to come out about it.
From the article in the OP:
"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."
The most personal questions I ever got asked about when I went to my Eagle Board of Review, were if I was active in my religion, as per the Scout Oath ("To God and my Country") and if I would strive to remain "Reverent," as part of the Scout Law. I think Mr. Andersen is an honest and exemplary young man whose project, on its face, sounds worthy of recognition. I have no reason to believe he's a horrible person or anything like that. But he willfully disobeyed one of Scouting's most important tenets. Because of this, I stand by the Board's decision.
They can do whatever they want, and I said I respect their decision as a private organization. I don't respect their policies, and hence the group.
Now, they're silence on sexual molesters in their midst (Canada - don't know about the States)... that's a decision or lack thereof that I don't respect.
Is it a private organization? They hold events in public buildings and military land for next to nothing. I don't know what the laws are in the U.S, but I'm kind of sure in the U.K that would make it a public organization.
Also are atheists really not allowed to join either lol?
On October 09 2012 01:21 rackdude wrote: This should really be closed and be resubmitted in a more civil manner as the way it stands is not giving a good discussion, rather just huge amount of disgusting mudslinging. It's a real issue and as an Eagle Scout I am concerned by how the national leadership does some stuff that I do not agree with, but this is not the way to discuss it.
This ain't personal. Understand your status is being sullied by your leadership and they're the ones slinging the nastiest mud.
That doesn't excuse you from an awful, biased OP. Your rhetoric is clearly showing, and I would kindly ask you to refrain from it if you're going to initiate threads on emotionally-divisive issues such as this.
I said this back in the "Gay Scout Resolution" thread, and I'll re-post it here with a small addition.
When I was a younger Boy Scout, we also didn't mention politics or even differing religions for that matter, because we knew that we each had our separate opinions on the matter and knew to let the parents talk to thier kids about those issues. BSA expects Mom and Dad to explain how sex works and what differing political opinions and religious beliefs are and what homosexuality is. Someone who is openly expressive of their sexuality, in my opinion, should not be tolerated, hetero- or homosexual; Boy Scouts isn't the place for it. There is a double standard on this, as I heard far more than my fair share of heterosexuality (boys will be boys...), but I disapprove of it just as ardently. Basically, BSA doesn't want to deal with any of it, because they believe it's not their place. To be honest, a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is acceptable here in my opinion, for any sexual orientation. I know it's not popular, but those are family issues (homosexuality, teenage promiscuity, etc.), and they should remain as such if you ask me.
I "shrug" at the notion that Johnny is gay or Timmy is sexually promiscuous or Spike is Muslim. Yes, I'll disagree with them on a moral level. But we can still be in the same Patrol together and get along just fine because we can set those things off to the side when we get together for meetings and go on campouts, etc.
As for this particular story, I actually do not believe that the Scouts rejected this man's Eagle Scout award for him being homosexual, but probably because he was vocal, public, or both about his homosexuality. Given the nature of his Eagle Project too, I imagine he used this "tolerance wall" as a pretty blatant way to come out about it.
From the article in the OP:
"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."
The most personal questions I ever got asked about when I went to my Eagle Board of Review, were if I was active in my religion, as per the Scout Oath ("To God and my Country") and if I would strive to remain "Reverent," as part of the Scout Law. I think Mr. Andersen is an honest and exemplary young man whose project, on its face, sounds worthy of recognition. I have no reason to believe he's a horrible person or anything like that. But he willfully disobeyed one of Scouting's most important tenets. Because of this, I stand by the Board's decision.
They can do whatever they want, and I said I respect their decision as a private organization. I don't respect their policies, and hence the group.
Now, they're silence on sexual molesters in their midst (Canada - don't know about the States)... that's a decision or lack thereof that I don't respect.
If you don't respect their policies, but decide to make a thread about a topic pertaining to said organization, then be more neutral and less vitriolic in the OP.
As for suspected sexual molesters, that's a differently issue entirely. It's important, no doubt, but separate nonetheless.
On October 09 2012 01:21 rackdude wrote: This should really be closed and be resubmitted in a more civil manner as the way it stands is not giving a good discussion, rather just huge amount of disgusting mudslinging. It's a real issue and as an Eagle Scout I am concerned by how the national leadership does some stuff that I do not agree with, but this is not the way to discuss it.
This ain't personal. Understand your status is being sullied by your leadership and they're the ones slinging the nastiest mud.
That doesn't excuse you from an awful, biased OP. Your rhetoric is clearly showing, and I would kindly ask you to refrain from it if you're going to initiate threads on emotionally-divisive issues such as this.
I said this back in the "Gay Scout Resolution" thread, and I'll re-post it here with a small addition.
When I was a younger Boy Scout, we also didn't mention politics or even differing religions for that matter, because we knew that we each had our separate opinions on the matter and knew to let the parents talk to thier kids about those issues. BSA expects Mom and Dad to explain how sex works and what differing political opinions and religious beliefs are and what homosexuality is. Someone who is openly expressive of their sexuality, in my opinion, should not be tolerated, hetero- or homosexual; Boy Scouts isn't the place for it. There is a double standard on this, as I heard far more than my fair share of heterosexuality (boys will be boys...), but I disapprove of it just as ardently. Basically, BSA doesn't want to deal with any of it, because they believe it's not their place. To be honest, a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is acceptable here in my opinion, for any sexual orientation. I know it's not popular, but those are family issues (homosexuality, teenage promiscuity, etc.), and they should remain as such if you ask me.
I "shrug" at the notion that Johnny is gay or Timmy is sexually promiscuous or Spike is Muslim. Yes, I'll disagree with them on a moral level. But we can still be in the same Patrol together and get along just fine because we can set those things off to the side when we get together for meetings and go on campouts, etc.
As for this particular story, I actually do not believe that the Scouts rejected this man's Eagle Scout award for him being homosexual, but probably because he was vocal, public, or both about his homosexuality. Given the nature of his Eagle Project too, I imagine he used this "tolerance wall" as a pretty blatant way to come out about it.
From the article in the OP:
"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."
The most personal questions I ever got asked about when I went to my Eagle Board of Review, were if I was active in my religion, as per the Scout Oath ("To God and my Country") and if I would strive to remain "Reverent," as part of the Scout Law. I think Mr. Andersen is an honest and exemplary young man whose project, on its face, sounds worthy of recognition. I have no reason to believe he's a horrible person or anything like that. But he willfully disobeyed one of Scouting's most important tenets. Because of this, I stand by the Board's decision.
They can do whatever they want, and I said I respect their decision as a private organization. I don't respect their policies, and hence the group.
Now, they're silence on sexual molesters in their midst (Canada - don't know about the States)... that's a decision or lack thereof that I don't respect.
Is it a private organization? They hold events in public buildings and military land for next to nothing. I don't know what the laws are in the U.S, but I'm kind of sure in the U.K that would make it a public organization.
Also are atheists really not allowed to join either lol?
It could be better privatized, I admit. A lot of Scouts enter the military or hold public office, and I wanna say it's largely non-profit (what with all the volunteerism), but I'd feel a hundred times better if it were purely private. I think we could sustain ourselves as an organization.
Technically, you could lie about your atheism and get away with it; not sure how long you'd last in a Troop that can catch your dishonesty though, lol. Otherwise, no, atheists would not be able to join as they would have to acknowledge a belief in a higher power.
Boy Scouts are a Christian organization. That's how they were founded, that's how they're run. Christianity forbids homosexuality very explicitly.
That'd be like not letting a conservative Christian into a leadership position of an organization devoted to Atheism. It is and always has been a non-issue.
On October 09 2012 01:21 rackdude wrote: This should really be closed and be resubmitted in a more civil manner as the way it stands is not giving a good discussion, rather just huge amount of disgusting mudslinging. It's a real issue and as an Eagle Scout I am concerned by how the national leadership does some stuff that I do not agree with, but this is not the way to discuss it.
This ain't personal. Understand your status is being sullied by your leadership and they're the ones slinging the nastiest mud.
That doesn't excuse you from an awful, biased OP. Your rhetoric is clearly showing, and I would kindly ask you to refrain from it if you're going to initiate threads on emotionally-divisive issues such as this.
I said this back in the "Gay Scout Resolution" thread, and I'll re-post it here with a small addition.
When I was a younger Boy Scout, we also didn't mention politics or even differing religions for that matter, because we knew that we each had our separate opinions on the matter and knew to let the parents talk to thier kids about those issues. BSA expects Mom and Dad to explain how sex works and what differing political opinions and religious beliefs are and what homosexuality is. Someone who is openly expressive of their sexuality, in my opinion, should not be tolerated, hetero- or homosexual; Boy Scouts isn't the place for it. There is a double standard on this, as I heard far more than my fair share of heterosexuality (boys will be boys...), but I disapprove of it just as ardently. Basically, BSA doesn't want to deal with any of it, because they believe it's not their place. To be honest, a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is acceptable here in my opinion, for any sexual orientation. I know it's not popular, but those are family issues (homosexuality, teenage promiscuity, etc.), and they should remain as such if you ask me.
I "shrug" at the notion that Johnny is gay or Timmy is sexually promiscuous or Spike is Muslim. Yes, I'll disagree with them on a moral level. But we can still be in the same Patrol together and get along just fine because we can set those things off to the side when we get together for meetings and go on campouts, etc.
As for this particular story, I actually do not believe that the Scouts rejected this man's Eagle Scout award for him being homosexual, but probably because he was vocal, public, or both about his homosexuality. Given the nature of his Eagle Project too, I imagine he used this "tolerance wall" as a pretty blatant way to come out about it.
From the article in the OP:
"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."
The most personal questions I ever got asked about when I went to my Eagle Board of Review, were if I was active in my religion, as per the Scout Oath ("To God and my Country") and if I would strive to remain "Reverent," as part of the Scout Law. I think Mr. Andersen is an honest and exemplary young man whose project, on its face, sounds worthy of recognition. I have no reason to believe he's a horrible person or anything like that. But he willfully disobeyed one of Scouting's most important tenets. Because of this, I stand by the Board's decision.
They can do whatever they want, and I said I respect their decision as a private organization. I don't respect their policies, and hence the group.
Now, they're silence on sexual molesters in their midst (Canada - don't know about the States)... that's a decision or lack thereof that I don't respect.
Is it a private organization? They hold events in public buildings and military land for next to nothing. I don't know what the laws are in the U.S, but I'm kind of sure in the U.K that would make it a public organization.
Also are atheists really not allowed to join either lol?
God belief is implied for anyone joining. If leadership finds out you're a heathen, well...that just doesn't jive with their moral teachings.
On October 09 2012 01:21 rackdude wrote: This should really be closed and be resubmitted in a more civil manner as the way it stands is not giving a good discussion, rather just huge amount of disgusting mudslinging. It's a real issue and as an Eagle Scout I am concerned by how the national leadership does some stuff that I do not agree with, but this is not the way to discuss it.
This ain't personal. Understand your status is being sullied by your leadership and they're the ones slinging the nastiest mud.
That doesn't excuse you from an awful, biased OP. Your rhetoric is clearly showing, and I would kindly ask you to refrain from it if you're going to initiate threads on emotionally-divisive issues such as this.
I said this back in the "Gay Scout Resolution" thread, and I'll re-post it here with a small addition.
When I was a younger Boy Scout, we also didn't mention politics or even differing religions for that matter, because we knew that we each had our separate opinions on the matter and knew to let the parents talk to thier kids about those issues. BSA expects Mom and Dad to explain how sex works and what differing political opinions and religious beliefs are and what homosexuality is. Someone who is openly expressive of their sexuality, in my opinion, should not be tolerated, hetero- or homosexual; Boy Scouts isn't the place for it. There is a double standard on this, as I heard far more than my fair share of heterosexuality (boys will be boys...), but I disapprove of it just as ardently. Basically, BSA doesn't want to deal with any of it, because they believe it's not their place. To be honest, a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is acceptable here in my opinion, for any sexual orientation. I know it's not popular, but those are family issues (homosexuality, teenage promiscuity, etc.), and they should remain as such if you ask me.
I "shrug" at the notion that Johnny is gay or Timmy is sexually promiscuous or Spike is Muslim. Yes, I'll disagree with them on a moral level. But we can still be in the same Patrol together and get along just fine because we can set those things off to the side when we get together for meetings and go on campouts, etc.
As for this particular story, I actually do not believe that the Scouts rejected this man's Eagle Scout award for him being homosexual, but probably because he was vocal, public, or both about his homosexuality. Given the nature of his Eagle Project too, I imagine he used this "tolerance wall" as a pretty blatant way to come out about it.
From the article in the OP:
"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."
The most personal questions I ever got asked about when I went to my Eagle Board of Review, were if I was active in my religion, as per the Scout Oath ("To God and my Country") and if I would strive to remain "Reverent," as part of the Scout Law. I think Mr. Andersen is an honest and exemplary young man whose project, on its face, sounds worthy of recognition. I have no reason to believe he's a horrible person or anything like that. But he willfully disobeyed one of Scouting's most important tenets. Because of this, I stand by the Board's decision.
They can do whatever they want, and I said I respect their decision as a private organization. I don't respect their policies, and hence the group.
Now, they're silence on sexual molesters in their midst (Canada - don't know about the States)... that's a decision or lack thereof that I don't respect.
If you don't respect their policies, but decide to make a thread about a topic pertaining to said organization, then be more neutral and less vitriolic in the OP.
As for suspected sexual molesters, that's a differently issue entirely. It's important, no doubt, but separate nonetheless.
As long as the post stands, talk to the mods about your gripes and not me. I already know what you think from your first post.
On October 09 2012 01:21 rackdude wrote: This should really be closed and be resubmitted in a more civil manner as the way it stands is not giving a good discussion, rather just huge amount of disgusting mudslinging. It's a real issue and as an Eagle Scout I am concerned by how the national leadership does some stuff that I do not agree with, but this is not the way to discuss it.
This ain't personal. Understand your status is being sullied by your leadership and they're the ones slinging the nastiest mud.
That doesn't excuse you from an awful, biased OP. Your rhetoric is clearly showing, and I would kindly ask you to refrain from it if you're going to initiate threads on emotionally-divisive issues such as this.
I said this back in the "Gay Scout Resolution" thread, and I'll re-post it here with a small addition.
When I was a younger Boy Scout, we also didn't mention politics or even differing religions for that matter, because we knew that we each had our separate opinions on the matter and knew to let the parents talk to thier kids about those issues. BSA expects Mom and Dad to explain how sex works and what differing political opinions and religious beliefs are and what homosexuality is. Someone who is openly expressive of their sexuality, in my opinion, should not be tolerated, hetero- or homosexual; Boy Scouts isn't the place for it. There is a double standard on this, as I heard far more than my fair share of heterosexuality (boys will be boys...), but I disapprove of it just as ardently. Basically, BSA doesn't want to deal with any of it, because they believe it's not their place. To be honest, a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is acceptable here in my opinion, for any sexual orientation. I know it's not popular, but those are family issues (homosexuality, teenage promiscuity, etc.), and they should remain as such if you ask me.
I "shrug" at the notion that Johnny is gay or Timmy is sexually promiscuous or Spike is Muslim. Yes, I'll disagree with them on a moral level. But we can still be in the same Patrol together and get along just fine because we can set those things off to the side when we get together for meetings and go on campouts, etc.
As for this particular story, I actually do not believe that the Scouts rejected this man's Eagle Scout award for him being homosexual, but probably because he was vocal, public, or both about his homosexuality. Given the nature of his Eagle Project too, I imagine he used this "tolerance wall" as a pretty blatant way to come out about it.
"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."
The most personal questions I ever got asked about when I went to my Eagle Board of Review, were if I was active in my religion, as per the Scout Oath ("To God and my Country") and if I would strive to remain "Reverent," as part of the Scout Law. I think Mr. Andersen is an honest and exemplary young man whose project, on its face, sounds worthy of recognition. I have no reason to believe he's a horrible person or anything like that. But he willfully disobeyed one of Scouting's most important tenets. Because of this, I stand by the Board's decision.
You put together a fair point but the problem is by that logic anyone who "displays their sexuality" is subject to the same treatment, so if someone wanted to say announce their getting engaged would that elicit the same response, if its a hetero marriage probably not, if it's a gay marriage I would bet that it would. The problem with "don't ask don't tell" is that "telling" consists of not hiding the fact that you are a homosexual to the world. Sure as a straight man I can say I don't go around shoving my sexuality in other peoples faces but that's because I am a part of the accepted majority, however if a gay person is known as being gay they are suddenly "openly expressive of their sexuality" I am completely open about my sexuality but it's not an issue because I'm not gay. I would understand if there was a candidate who was going around showing pictures of him having sex with other men, or women for that matter, and he got denied/kicked out, but all this kid did was let his leaders know he was gay. (As a comparison what would happen if he instead told them he had a girlfriend would that be grounds for rejection because he is being open about his sexual orientation as straight?)
That being said BSA is a private organization and it is perfectly within their right to have standards regarding sexual orientation, religion or whatever they choose, just don't pretend that it's merely about being open about your sexuality, gay or straight, because it's not.
On October 09 2012 02:03 deth2munkies wrote: Boy Scouts are a Christian organization. That's how they were founded, that's how they're run. Christianity forbids homosexuality very explicitly.
That'd be like not letting a conservative Christian into a leadership position of an organization devoted to Atheism. It is and always has been a non-issue.
The closest you could say is that the Scouts are a religious organization, as you must be affiliated with some sort of God. I knew a Hindu guy in my first Troop, for example. Pretty sure there are religious rewards for Muslim Scouts even. I could accept that it was founded upon Christianity and Christian principles, and that the majority of members are of the Christian faith, but it's open to anyone of a religious affiliation.
On October 09 2012 01:21 rackdude wrote: This should really be closed and be resubmitted in a more civil manner as the way it stands is not giving a good discussion, rather just huge amount of disgusting mudslinging. It's a real issue and as an Eagle Scout I am concerned by how the national leadership does some stuff that I do not agree with, but this is not the way to discuss it.
This ain't personal. Understand your status is being sullied by your leadership and they're the ones slinging the nastiest mud.
That doesn't excuse you from an awful, biased OP. Your rhetoric is clearly showing, and I would kindly ask you to refrain from it if you're going to initiate threads on emotionally-divisive issues such as this.
I said this back in the "Gay Scout Resolution" thread, and I'll re-post it here with a small addition.
When I was a younger Boy Scout, we also didn't mention politics or even differing religions for that matter, because we knew that we each had our separate opinions on the matter and knew to let the parents talk to thier kids about those issues. BSA expects Mom and Dad to explain how sex works and what differing political opinions and religious beliefs are and what homosexuality is. Someone who is openly expressive of their sexuality, in my opinion, should not be tolerated, hetero- or homosexual; Boy Scouts isn't the place for it. There is a double standard on this, as I heard far more than my fair share of heterosexuality (boys will be boys...), but I disapprove of it just as ardently. Basically, BSA doesn't want to deal with any of it, because they believe it's not their place. To be honest, a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is acceptable here in my opinion, for any sexual orientation. I know it's not popular, but those are family issues (homosexuality, teenage promiscuity, etc.), and they should remain as such if you ask me.
I "shrug" at the notion that Johnny is gay or Timmy is sexually promiscuous or Spike is Muslim. Yes, I'll disagree with them on a moral level. But we can still be in the same Patrol together and get along just fine because we can set those things off to the side when we get together for meetings and go on campouts, etc.
As for this particular story, I actually do not believe that the Scouts rejected this man's Eagle Scout award for him being homosexual, but probably because he was vocal, public, or both about his homosexuality. Given the nature of his Eagle Project too, I imagine he used this "tolerance wall" as a pretty blatant way to come out about it.
"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."
The most personal questions I ever got asked about when I went to my Eagle Board of Review, were if I was active in my religion, as per the Scout Oath ("To God and my Country") and if I would strive to remain "Reverent," as part of the Scout Law. I think Mr. Andersen is an honest and exemplary young man whose project, on its face, sounds worthy of recognition. I have no reason to believe he's a horrible person or anything like that. But he willfully disobeyed one of Scouting's most important tenets. Because of this, I stand by the Board's decision.
You put together a fair point but the problem is by that logic anyone who "displays their sexuality" is subject to the same treatment, so if someone wanted to say announce their getting engaged would that elicit the same response, if its a hetero marriage probably not, if it's a gay marriage I would bet that it would. The problem with "don't ask don't tell" is that "telling" consists of not hiding the fact that you are a homosexual to the world. Sure as a straight man I can say I don't go around shoving my sexuality in other peoples faces but that's because I am a part of the accepted majority, however if a gay person is known as being gay they are suddenly "openly expressive of their sexuality" I am completely open about my sexuality but it's not an issue because I'm not gay. I would understand if there was a candidate who was going around showing pictures of him having sex with other men, or women for that matter, and he got denied/kicked out, but all this kid did was let his leaders know he was gay.
That being said BSA is a private organization and it is perfectly within their right to have standards regarding sexual orientation, religion or whatever they choose, just don't pretend that it's merely about being open about your sexuality, gay or straight, because it's not.
As I said, there's an immense double standard and I wish it weren't so. Small talk around campfires very easily leads to these sorts of conversations, for example. Honestly, it's still best to leave those discussions off-site of Scout activities, in my opinion. You're there to do grow as young men, not to talk about your love life. Shoot, you're also not there to play video games, text people on your phone (cell phones are brought along strictly for emergencies), or read excessive amounts of Star Wars RPG books. ...Yes, I did that last one once, hahahaha. X-D I really shouldn't have, though.
It may not be merely about being open, but it's certainly a necessary, and almost totally sufficient, part of this policy.
On October 09 2012 00:47 neversummer wrote: I don't think gay men should be prancing around with large groups of 8-10 year old boys.
I'm sorry, but I have to call you out on this one. What does one's sexual orientation have to do with their interaction with minors? Should we not allow heterosexual men to be the camp counselors of summer camps because there are female minors in the mix? Just because a person is attracted to people of the same sex does not mean that they are attracted to people of the same sex in single digit age groups.
As a gay person myself, I find this both ignorant and intentionally trying to pin negativity towards a specific group of people which want nothing more than equal treatment on a topic that isn't even relevant to people/group they're being associated with.
On October 09 2012 01:21 rackdude wrote: This should really be closed and be resubmitted in a more civil manner as the way it stands is not giving a good discussion, rather just huge amount of disgusting mudslinging. It's a real issue and as an Eagle Scout I am concerned by how the national leadership does some stuff that I do not agree with, but this is not the way to discuss it.
This ain't personal. Understand your status is being sullied by your leadership and they're the ones slinging the nastiest mud.
That doesn't excuse you from an awful, biased OP. Your rhetoric is clearly showing, and I would kindly ask you to refrain from it if you're going to initiate threads on emotionally-divisive issues such as this.
I said this back in the "Gay Scout Resolution" thread, and I'll re-post it here with a small addition.
When I was a younger Boy Scout, we also didn't mention politics or even differing religions for that matter, because we knew that we each had our separate opinions on the matter and knew to let the parents talk to thier kids about those issues. BSA expects Mom and Dad to explain how sex works and what differing political opinions and religious beliefs are and what homosexuality is. Someone who is openly expressive of their sexuality, in my opinion, should not be tolerated, hetero- or homosexual; Boy Scouts isn't the place for it. There is a double standard on this, as I heard far more than my fair share of heterosexuality (boys will be boys...), but I disapprove of it just as ardently. Basically, BSA doesn't want to deal with any of it, because they believe it's not their place. To be honest, a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is acceptable here in my opinion, for any sexual orientation. I know it's not popular, but those are family issues (homosexuality, teenage promiscuity, etc.), and they should remain as such if you ask me.
I "shrug" at the notion that Johnny is gay or Timmy is sexually promiscuous or Spike is Muslim. Yes, I'll disagree with them on a moral level. But we can still be in the same Patrol together and get along just fine because we can set those things off to the side when we get together for meetings and go on campouts, etc.
As for this particular story, I actually do not believe that the Scouts rejected this man's Eagle Scout award for him being homosexual, but probably because he was vocal, public, or both about his homosexuality. Given the nature of his Eagle Project too, I imagine he used this "tolerance wall" as a pretty blatant way to come out about it.
"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."
The most personal questions I ever got asked about when I went to my Eagle Board of Review, were if I was active in my religion, as per the Scout Oath ("To God and my Country") and if I would strive to remain "Reverent," as part of the Scout Law. I think Mr. Andersen is an honest and exemplary young man whose project, on its face, sounds worthy of recognition. I have no reason to believe he's a horrible person or anything like that. But he willfully disobeyed one of Scouting's most important tenets. Because of this, I stand by the Board's decision.
You put together a fair point but the problem is by that logic anyone who "displays their sexuality" is subject to the same treatment, so if someone wanted to say announce their getting engaged would that elicit the same response, if its a hetero marriage probably not, if it's a gay marriage I would bet that it would. The problem with "don't ask don't tell" is that "telling" consists of not hiding the fact that you are a homosexual to the world. Sure as a straight man I can say I don't go around shoving my sexuality in other peoples faces but that's because I am a part of the accepted majority, however if a gay person is known as being gay they are suddenly "openly expressive of their sexuality" I am completely open about my sexuality but it's not an issue because I'm not gay. I would understand if there was a candidate who was going around showing pictures of him having sex with other men, or women for that matter, and he got denied/kicked out, but all this kid did was let his leaders know he was gay. (As a comparison what would happen if he instead told them he had a girlfriend would that be grounds for rejection because he is being open about his sexual orientation as straight?)
That being said BSA is a private organization and it is perfectly within their right to have standards regarding sexual orientation, religion or whatever they choose, just don't pretend that it's merely about being open about your sexuality, gay or straight, because it's not.
Well said.
On October 09 2012 02:03 deth2munkies wrote: Boy Scouts are a Christian organization. That's how they were founded, that's how they're run. Christianity forbids homosexuality very explicitly.
That'd be like not letting a conservative Christian into a leadership position of an organization devoted to Atheism. It is and always has been a non-issue.
Christianity does not forbid homosexuality. Right wing Christians do. They're not representative of the religion or of Christians everywhere.
On October 09 2012 00:47 neversummer wrote: I don't think gay men should be prancing around with large groups of 8-10 year old boys.
I'm sorry, but I have to call you out on this one. What does one's sexual orientation have to do with their interaction with minors? Should we not allow heterosexual men to be the camp counselors of summer camps because there are female minors in the mix? Just because a person is attracted to people of the same sex does not mean that they are attracted to people of the same sex in single digit age groups.
As a gay person myself, I find this both ignorant and intentionally trying to pin negativity towards a specific group of people which want nothing more than equal treatment on a topic that isn't even relevant to people/group they're being associated with.
I think most of the people who oppose having gay men leading boy scout troops would also oppose having straight men leading girl scout troops.
In either case this discussion is pointless, because this is a scout and not a scout leader. I can't come up with any possible justification for the way they are treating this boy.
I wish we could have a well written OP on this issue with less angry rhetoric.
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.
On October 09 2012 02:03 deth2munkies wrote: Boy Scouts are a Christian organization. That's how they were founded, that's how they're run. Christianity forbids homosexuality very explicitly.
That'd be like not letting a conservative Christian into a leadership position of an organization devoted to Atheism. It is and always has been a non-issue.
Christianity does not forbid homosexuality. Right wing Christians do. They're not representative of the religion or of Christians everywhere.[/QUOTE]
I do not compute. Aren't christians classified as a group of people who follow a book called "The Bible: New testament"?
Even if they don't follow everything in it, you would think they supports all the direct "orders"? I'm pretty sure that the bible explicilitly condemns homosexuality.
If we talk about terms alone, then people who do not follow said book, can't be classified as christians. They would have to call themself something else, so people could distinguish the groups.
On October 09 2012 02:03 deth2munkies wrote: Boy Scouts are a Christian organization. That's how they were founded, that's how they're run. Christianity forbids homosexuality very explicitly.
That'd be like not letting a conservative Christian into a leadership position of an organization devoted to Atheism. It is and always has been a non-issue.
Christianity does not forbid homosexuality. Right wing Christians do. They're not representative of the religion or of Christians everywhere.
I do not compute. Aren't christians classified as a group of people who follow a book called "The Bible: New testament"?
Even if they don't follow everything in it, you would think they supports all the direct "orders"? I'm pretty sure that the bible explicilitly condemns homosexuality.
If we talk about terms alone, then people who do not follow said book, can't be classified as christians. They would have to call themself something else, so people could distinguish the groups.
Give me a direct quote of Jesus saying that homosexuals are evil and I'll agree with you.
On October 09 2012 02:37 Subversive wrote: Give me a direct quote of Jesus saying that homosexuals are evil and I'll agree with you.
I'm not a Christian, but my understanding is that the reasoning is: 1) The Old Testament condemns homosexuality in strong terms and 2) Jesus says that he has not come to abolish Old Testament law.
(and yes, I'm aware that this reasoning appears problematic in light of the many OT regulations that no Christians adhere to. I imagine that there's some sort of response to this, but I don't know it.)
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.
Give me a direct quote of Jesus saying that homosexuals are evil and I'll agree with you.
Not a quote to disprove you, just general information on the topic
The closest you have to a direct quote in the new testament forbidding homosexuality is Romans 1:27 "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." (King James Bible)
Whether this does, in fact, forbid homosexuality is still up for debate, some scholars dispute it. The old testament is another beast entirely, but seeing as the new testament revises a lot from the old (and many, many things from the old testament are being disregarded by Christians), its hardly very relevant
Aside from the religious debate, how about if a parent doesn't want his son to spend summer break camping with a counselor / scout leader who may or may not find him sexually attractive? I'm not saying gays are child molesters, but I am suggesting that the ones who were molesting little boys probably are gay. Tolerance is one thing, but then there's enabling and then there's outright stupidity. If the BSA is acting under some archaic and stupid belief by forbidding homosexuals from being scout leaders then so be it. It's their right as an organization to refuse membership to whomever they want and to promote people in the organization as they see fit, based on the trust that they are "ideal" and not just "tolerable" as mentors for the parents' children. Good for them. If you don't like it, start up a Gay Scouts of America and refuse membership to straight men and boys. The BSA aren't the only ones who can play at that game.
On October 09 2012 02:03 deth2munkies wrote: Boy Scouts are a Christian organization. That's how they were founded, that's how they're run. Christianity forbids homosexuality very explicitly.
That'd be like not letting a conservative Christian into a leadership position of an organization devoted to Atheism. It is and always has been a non-issue.
Christianity does not forbid homosexuality. Right wing Christians do. They're not representative of the religion or of Christians everywhere.
I do not compute. Aren't christians classified as a group of people who follow a book called "The Bible: New testament"?
Even if they don't follow everything in it, you would think they supports all the direct "orders"? I'm pretty sure that the bible explicilitly condemns homosexuality.
If we talk about terms alone, then people who do not follow said book, can't be classified as christians. They would have to call themself something else, so people could distinguish the groups.
Give me a direct quote of Jesus saying that homosexuals are evil and I'll agree with you.
Fish. I honestly only read the bible long enough to find out that it was not of my interrest, and pretty insulting.
If Jesus didn't say it, then ignore my previous comment. I just thought that since alot of christians said so, then it would be true. I just assumed that people had written what they belive to be the holy word of a divine creator, which was specifically made for them.
On October 09 2012 02:48 dUTtrOACh wrote: Aside from the religious debate, how about if a parent doesn't want his son to spend summer break camping with a counselor / scout leader who may or may not find him sexually attractive? I'm not saying gays are child molesters, but I am suggesting that the ones who were molesting little boys probably are gay. Tolerance is one thing, but then there's enabling and then there's outright stupidity. If the BSA is acting under some archaic and stupid belief by forbidding homosexuals from being scout leaders then so be it. It's their right as an organization to refuse membership to whomever they want and to promote people in the organization as they see fit, based on the trust that they are "ideal" and not just "tolerable" as mentors for the parents' children. Good for them. If you don't like it, start up a Gay Scouts of America and refuse membership to straight men and boys. The BSA aren't the only ones who can play at that game.
...I don't think that just because you are homosexual, you are more willing to commit rape.
However i agree with you on one point. An organization should be allowed to have it's own policy, as long as A) it don't harm anyone, and B) as long as they are not supported by another organization(like the goverment) with a contradicting policy.
On October 09 2012 02:37 Subversive wrote: Give me a direct quote of Jesus saying that homosexuals are evil and I'll agree with you.
I'm not a Christian, but my understanding is that the reasoning is: 1) The Old Testament condemns homosexuality in strong terms and 2) Jesus says that he has not come to abolish Old Testament law.
(and yes, I'm aware that this reasoning appears problematic in light of the many OT regulations that no Christians adhere to. I imagine that there's some sort of response to this, but I don't know it.)
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.
Also RE: the other religious affiliations, yes they are allowed, some are even supported, but they're in no way required to. They're a private group, they can do what they want. Private groups are defined by exclusivity, you have to meet certain conditions before you can join. Even so, I know for a fact that Judaism and Islam both forbid homosexuality as well, though I haven't read Vadic (sp?) scripts and I know Bhuddists don't give a shit about...well anything.
On October 09 2012 02:48 dUTtrOACh wrote: Aside from the religious debate, how about if a parent doesn't want his son to spend summer break camping with a counselor / scout leader who may or may not find him sexually attractive? I'm not saying gays are child molesters, but I am suggesting that the ones who were molesting little boys probably are gay.
Unless there is some connection between being gay and being a phedofile (Which I very strongly doubt there is), while there may be parents who feel like this, it is an irrelevant argument. In my opinion, phedofilia has little to do with any gender-specific sexual orientation, and more to do with mental issues. A healthy gay man or a healthy straight man simply does not molest children of any gender.
On October 09 2012 00:47 neversummer wrote: First of all I don't think anyone is supporting the Boy Scouts of America.
Secondly I applaud them for maintaining their position in the midst of criticism from the community; I've never really cared for what is "politically" correct and quite frankly I don't think gay men should be prancing around with large groups of 8-10 year old boys.
The BSA doesn't have 8-10 year old boys in it... it starts at like 6-7th grade.
Your comment isn't related to a gay scout being able to advance in the organization... you are talking about the leadership which is two different things.
Sticking with leadership though, why is a gay male more of a thread to the scouts than a heterosexual female? Are gays more likely to be rapists than heterosexual females (which often help lead in the BSA) or male leaders in the girl scouts?
Why do you call it 'prancing around' when it's a gay man? If it was a heterosexual man dedicated his free time to help run a troop, would it be 'prancing around' then?
There are regulations in place to prevent sexual misconduct in the BSA. I hear about gays being punished/ejected by the BSA from time to time, but I don't hear about the ones who kept their sexuality (and therefore apparent rapists' personality, as you imply) a secret getting caught only after going on a raping binge.
If you want to support the BSA in their legal right to discriminate, that is your right as well. But if you are going to try to justify your opinion on this forum, be prepared for us to call you out on your idiocy (I doubt I'm the only person who has commended as I type this)
You start when you are 11. (I am an Eagle Scout and Gay Ally for the Gay Alliance).
On October 09 2012 02:48 dUTtrOACh wrote: Aside from the religious debate, how about if a parent doesn't want his son to spend summer break camping with a counselor / scout leader who may or may not find him sexually attractive? I'm not saying gays are child molesters, but I am suggesting that the ones who were molesting little boys probably are gay. Tolerance is one thing, but then there's enabling and then there's outright stupidity. If the BSA is acting under some archaic and stupid belief by forbidding homosexuals from being scout leaders then so be it. It's their right as an organization to refuse membership to whomever they want and to promote people in the organization as they see fit, based on the trust that they are "ideal" and not just "tolerable" as mentors for the parents' children. Good for them. If you don't like it, start up a Gay Scouts of America and refuse membership to straight men and boys. The BSA aren't the only ones who can play at that game.
...I don't think that just because you are homosexual, you are more willing to commit rape.
However i agree with you on one point. An organization should be allowed to have it's own policy, as long as A) it don't harm anyone, and B) as long as they are not supported by another organization(like the goverment) with a contradicting policy.
I know, and I'm not saying that they are willing to rape children, either. What I am saying is that they've had experiences where that sort of thing has happened, and believe this to be the best and most transparent preventative measure. The thing about government policy too, is that it is subject to change. While it's unlikely to see a reversal in the belief that gays are entitled to equal opportunities it's not entirely unreasonable that an organization with a reputation to uphold seeks to protect their reputation by not changing their policies which they believe to be working.
What is the point in discussing whether or not the bible supposedly bans homosexuality? That doesn't really affect this discussion. If you think it matters, I suggest you watch this 5 minute video clip from the West Wing which sums up my thoughts.
On October 09 2012 02:48 dUTtrOACh wrote: Aside from the religious debate, how about if a parent doesn't want his son to spend summer break camping with a counselor / scout leader who may or may not find him sexually attractive? I'm not saying gays are child molesters, but I am suggesting that the ones who were molesting little boys probably are gay.
Unless there is some connection between being gay and being a phedofile (Which I very strongly doubt there is), while there may be parents who feel like this, it is an irrelevant argument. In my opinion, phedofilia has little to do with any gender-specific sexual orientation, and more to do with mental issues. A healthy gay man or a healthy straight man simply does not molest children of any gender.
But a gay pedophile might molest male children, whereas a straight pedophile would not, so if one is afraid of hiring a secret pedophile, the argument becomes relevant.
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.
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.
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 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 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 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.
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 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 02:30 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 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 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
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.
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 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.
In regards to my own person experiences with [the subject of] homosexuality (I don't consider myself homosexual) while in the BSA:
I had multiple scoutmasters during the years I was in scouts. Most of them were older men who were kind of weird, had smelly breath, and gave too many shoulder massages. However, there were never any reported inappropriate incidents with kids. One of the best scoutmasters I had was a community college professor in his early 30s. One time as a meeting was winding down, the boys in the troop were just talking and goofing off, and one of the kids either called some kid a faggot/gay/insert-homosexual-slur or asked about gay people in a tone that suggested homesexuality/homosexuals was/were disgusting. The scoutmaster just looked at him with a straight face, didn't get angry, and said, "There's nothing wrong with gay people. I have multiple gay friends, and they're just people too like you and me."
I thought that was a really healthy outlook for a group of 11-17 year olds to hear; particularly in a place like Mississippi where homosexual slurs are commonplace and socially accepted in many circles. And I heard that from a leader of the BSA. Whatever that's worth.
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.)
And most rapes are committed by males
Holy fuck this took the cake as the dumbest comment... Commited by males on other females.... The male to male rape ratio is NOT AT ALL comparable and if your argument is pedophilia than we best stop Priests and alter boys!
His point was extremely simple, if we're stopping scout leaders on the position that they might attempt to have sex with their troop because of a sexual attraction to that gender then all female troop leaders that are not homosexual should be subject to the same discrimination since the same logic applies. Apparently to be homosexual = find every man attractive including children.
I was in the Boy Scouts for years. It was really a life-changing experience in a way, you can experience nature in a way your average ipod touch carrying kid may never get to in their life. You can learn basic techniques which in the past would be considered common sense, like how to tell direction a dozen different ways, how to tie a knot that won't slip, how to build or start a fire. I could go on and on about the benefits of a good boy scout troop.
In all the time I was in boy scouts, the subject of sexuality never came up, much less homosexuality. From my perspective, the notion of taking away funding from these kids, to punish the kids and prevent them from having a life changing experience, because of the stance of some unknown board somewhere, strikes me as really bizarre, and slightly vindictive and spiteful.
Whatever your opinion of these bureaucrats somewhere, there is no need to call for withdrawing your support or withdrawing whatever funding exists, because you are only going to be hurting kids in the end and not whatever assholes you want to punish.
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?
Because no one's brought that up for discussion and because banning gay men is a finer-grained way of banning gay male pedophiles (the theoretical concern) than banning all men (not that it's all that fine-grained).
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.
That's a good point (and I admit that I hadn't actually noticed it when I made some earlier posts in this thread), but not the one you were making in the comment I quoted.
(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).
Well, "stop with the whole discussion" could be interpreted as an injunction, and I tend to assume an itchy finger on the ban button of TL mods. If that's not your approach to moderation, I apologize for that assumption.
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?
Because no one's brought that up for discussion and because banning gay men is a finer-grained way of banning gay male pedophiles (the theoretical concern) than banning all men (not that it's all that fine-grained).
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.
That's a good point (and I admit that I hadn't actually noticed it when I made some earlier posts in this thread), but not the one you were making in the comment I quoted.
(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).
Well, "stop with the whole discussion" could be interpreted as an injunction, and I tend to assume an itchy finger on the ban button of TL mods. If that's not your approach to moderation, I apologize for that assumption.
I must admit that in the past it was kinda unclear when a mod was discussing or moderating. What we do now is place a public note at the top of a thread if there is a 'rule' or a thing not to discuss. Sometimes mods will say in a forum post "from this point on, stop talking about X or there will be warns/bans". While they should really put a public note along with a mention of what page# it is effective for, I would still take them seriously. However, if a mod is discussing the topic and makes no mention of moderation, then you should consider it their opinion on the matters at hand. I'll be sure to be clear if I am moderating a topic and thus want people to stop discussing X (I don't do this in topics I am discussing or invested in though personally).
You cannot have someone in a leadership role that could engadger the safety of the children, they should grant the title but not allow him to lead kids.
On October 09 2012 00:43 MooMu wrote: [Christians of the board, do you really fucking think God gives a damn whether or not you like to stick your pecker in another man's ass? Do you consider all that savage shit in the OT divine and true?
Woah..as much as i agree, thats a bit rude.
And theres no talking to devout religious people about these things, believe me.
Lmao that's just as ignorant as the people you're bashing! Not all "devout religious people" are narrow minded kid.
On October 09 2012 04:54 TheLunatic wrote: You cannot have someone in a leadership role that could engadger the safety of the children, they should grant the title but not allow him to lead kids.
Homo doesn't mean pedo. Repeat after me, homo doesn't mean pedo. And again. And again.
Agreed, it's the worst part of democracy too. The thought that people like this vote makes me quite pessimistic for the human race.
neversummer is just as human as you are. Basically you are saying you don't like democracy because people who disagree with you are granted the freedom to vote. Doesn't that seem childish to you?
Democracy is a clearly flawed system, it's just the best we've got. But thats for another thread...
You should all check out the Penn and Teller episode of 'bullshit" that covers the bsa. its very informative on this topic and i believe is available on youtube.
On October 09 2012 04:36 jdseemoreglass wrote: I was in the Boy Scouts for years. It was really a life-changing experience in a way, you can experience nature in a way your average ipod touch carrying kid may never get to in their life. You can learn basic techniques which in the past would be considered common sense, like how to tell direction a dozen different ways, how to tie a knot that won't slip, how to build or start a fire. I could go on and on about the benefits of a good boy scout troop.
In all the time I was in boy scouts, the subject of sexuality never came up, much less homosexuality. From my perspective, the notion of taking away funding from these kids, to punish the kids and prevent them from having a life changing experience, because of the stance of some unknown board somewhere, strikes me as really bizarre, and slightly vindictive and spiteful.
Whatever your opinion of these bureaucrats somewhere, there is no need to call for withdrawing your support or withdrawing whatever funding exists, because you are only going to be hurting kids in the end and not whatever assholes you want to punish.
Is it really right to fund an organization that would expel any gay or atheist kid if they are found out, though? It's not just banning gay/atheist leaders, but any and all members, kids included. Is that really the kind of organization you wish to support? And should they get the amount of government support they do get?
And who's being vindictive here, the BSA or the people calling out the BSA?
This thread sure brings out the stupidity of some people, arguing that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles... We should just ban all catholic clergymen from becoming leaders as well. Lord knows they love molestin' kids.
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 even know how to respond to this. What a ridiculous comment. "Most rapes are committed by males" implies that we should not allow any male leaders in BSA because they are more likely to rape the kids than female leaders are...
When did people start thinking that the actions of 1 or 2 people started characterizing the whole group of people that they were a part of? It's like saying Islam is a violent religion because of all the Muslim terrorists...
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?
Because no one's brought that up for discussion and because banning gay men is a finer-grained way of banning gay male pedophiles (the theoretical concern) than banning all men (not that it's all that fine-grained).
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.
That's a good point (and I admit that I hadn't actually noticed it when I made some earlier posts in this thread), but not the one you were making in the comment I quoted.
(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).
Well, "stop with the whole discussion" could be interpreted as an injunction, and I tend to assume an itchy finger on the ban button of TL mods. If that's not your approach to moderation, I apologize for that assumption.
I must admit that in the past it was kinda unclear when a mod was discussing or moderating. What we do now is place a public note at the top of a thread if there is a 'rule' or a thing not to discuss. Sometimes mods will say in a forum post "from this point on, stop talking about X or there will be warns/bans". While they should really put a public note along with a mention of what page# it is effective for, I would still take them seriously. However, if a mod is discussing the topic and makes no mention of moderation, then you should consider it their opinion on the matters at hand. I'll be sure to be clear if I am moderating a topic and thus want people to stop discussing X (I don't do this in topics I am discussing or invested in though personally).
I will keep this in mind when you are moderating a thread, but we must also keep in mind that not all mods are so reasonable, clear, or consistent. When you say "in the past" I'm not sure how far back you are going... Anyway, some will aggressively moderate opinions without warning, and it has a kind of chilling effect on posting in my opinion, I myself have stifled my honest opinion in discussions, because half the time I have no idea if an opinion is acceptable or not, since it depends largely on the mod or mood or whatever.
Since 100% of reported rape cases are committed by humans, the only logical conclusion is to ban humans from BSA in its entirety. As replacement I suggest gender-changing frogs, as their sexual amorphism will ensure an environment free of discrimination and bigotry.
Furthermore, humans should just be banned from sexual intercourse period, since for not apparent fucking reason we make it an utterly disproportionate concern when evaluating the suitability of an individual for any number of tasks or positions. And since humans evidently can't keep their minds off of what other people are doing in their bedrooms, whether if effects them or not, we are clearly not mature or intelligent enough to handle the intricate complexities of sexual reproduction just yet.
As an Eagle Scout, I'm wondering if I should still feel that it's an accomplishment I should be proud of. My troop had absolutely no religious connotations to it and was just a bunch of guys that went hiking and skiing and learned useful skills. But the national organization seems to be doing their best to make the whole thing seem like a bunch of religious bigots.
On October 09 2012 05:56 Epishade wrote: This thread sure brings out the stupidity of some people, arguing that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles... We should just ban all catholic clergymen from becoming leaders as well. Lord knows they love molestin' kids.
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 even know how to respond to this. What a ridiculous comment. "Most rapes are committed by males" implies that we should not allow any male leaders in BSA because they are more likely to rape the kids than female leaders are...
When did people start thinking that the actions of 1 or 2 people started characterizing the whole group of people that they were a part of? It's like saying Islam is a violent religion because of all the Muslim terrorists...
I think you are extrapolating too much here. People are pointing out a very basic correlation. To put it another way, who is more likely to rape a woman, a straight man or a gay man? To ask this question is not to assume that all straight men are rapists, nor that all men are rapists. It's only to acknowledge the obvious fact that statistically you will have more rapes of women by straight males than by gay males or straight women or gay women.
On October 09 2012 05:56 Epishade wrote: This thread sure brings out the stupidity of some people, arguing that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles... We should just ban all catholic clergymen from becoming leaders as well. Lord knows they love molestin' kids.
On October 09 2012 03:15 qrs wrote:
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 even know how to respond to this. What a ridiculous comment. "Most rapes are committed by males" implies that we should not allow any male leaders in BSA because they are more likely to rape the kids than female leaders are...
When did people start thinking that the actions of 1 or 2 people started characterizing the whole group of people that they were a part of? It's like saying Islam is a violent religion because of all the Muslim terrorists...
I think you are extrapolating too much here. People are pointing out a very basic correlation. To put it another way, who is more likely to rape a woman, a straight man or a gay man? To ask this question is not to assume that all straight men are rapists, nor that all men are rapists. It's only to acknowledge the obvious fact that statistically you will have more rapes of women by straight males than by gay males or straight women or gay women.
It is absolutely not a "very basic correlation." The very obvious implication of that statement is that gay men are more likely to rape young boys. It is false and idiotic. Pedophiles are more likely to rape young boys. Gay men are not pedophiles. If that silly association between homosexuality and pedophilia is still stuck in your mind you have absolutely nothing to contribute to this discussion.
On October 09 2012 05:56 Epishade wrote: This thread sure brings out the stupidity of some people, arguing that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles... We should just ban all catholic clergymen from becoming leaders as well. Lord knows they love molestin' kids.
On October 09 2012 03:15 qrs wrote:
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 even know how to respond to this. What a ridiculous comment. "Most rapes are committed by males" implies that we should not allow any male leaders in BSA because they are more likely to rape the kids than female leaders are...
When did people start thinking that the actions of 1 or 2 people started characterizing the whole group of people that they were a part of? It's like saying Islam is a violent religion because of all the Muslim terrorists...
I think you are extrapolating too much here. People are pointing out a very basic correlation. To put it another way, who is more likely to rape a woman, a straight man or a gay man? To ask this question is not to assume that all straight men are rapists, nor that all men are rapists. It's only to acknowledge the obvious fact that statistically you will have more rapes of women by straight males than by gay males or straight women or gay women.
It is absolutely not a "very basic correlation." The very obvious implication of that statement is that gay men are more likely to rape young boys. It is false and idiotic. Pedophiles are more likely to rape young boys. Gay men are not pedophiles. If that silly association between homosexuality and pedophilia is still stuck in your mind you have absolutely nothing to contribute to this discussion.
A straight man is more likely to be a straight pedophile, and a gay man is more likely to be a gay pedophile. Again, I think this is fairly obvious and straight forward correlation. This is not to imply that either straight men nor gay men are inherently pedophiles by virtue of their sexual orientation.
It's a Christian organization... should we force churches to marry homosexuals where homosexual marriage is legal? I think that's stupid. It's explicitly based on Christian morals.
Although I'd say at the same time it's a stupid fucking cop out. I highly doubt they'd deny membership to someone who partakes in premarital sex, but who knows. I think the anti-homosexual view by them is utterly stupid, but I think they should have the right to have it.
On October 09 2012 05:56 Epishade wrote: This thread sure brings out the stupidity of some people, arguing that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles... We should just ban all catholic clergymen from becoming leaders as well. Lord knows they love molestin' kids.
On October 09 2012 03:15 qrs wrote:
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 even know how to respond to this. What a ridiculous comment. "Most rapes are committed by males" implies that we should not allow any male leaders in BSA because they are more likely to rape the kids than female leaders are...
When did people start thinking that the actions of 1 or 2 people started characterizing the whole group of people that they were a part of? It's like saying Islam is a violent religion because of all the Muslim terrorists...
I think you are extrapolating too much here. People are pointing out a very basic correlation. To put it another way, who is more likely to rape a woman, a straight man or a gay man? To ask this question is not to assume that all straight men are rapists, nor that all men are rapists. It's only to acknowledge the obvious fact that statistically you will have more rapes of women by straight males than by gay males or straight women or gay women.
It is absolutely not a "very basic correlation." The very obvious implication of that statement is that gay men are more likely to rape young boys. It is false and idiotic. Pedophiles are more likely to rape young boys. Gay men are not pedophiles. If that silly association between homosexuality and pedophilia is still stuck in your mind you have absolutely nothing to contribute to this discussion.
A straight man is more likely to be a straight pedophile, and a gay man is more likely to be a gay pedophile. Again, I think this is fairly obvious and straight forward correlation. This is not to imply that either straight men nor gay men are inherently pedophiles by virtue of their sexual orientation.
We may have conflicting sources but my understanding is that pedophilia has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Pedophiles are just as likely to rape girls as boys regardless of their orientation.
On October 09 2012 04:36 jdseemoreglass wrote: I was in the Boy Scouts for years. It was really a life-changing experience in a way, you can experience nature in a way your average ipod touch carrying kid may never get to in their life. You can learn basic techniques which in the past would be considered common sense, like how to tell direction a dozen different ways, how to tie a knot that won't slip, how to build or start a fire. I could go on and on about the benefits of a good boy scout troop.
In all the time I was in boy scouts, the subject of sexuality never came up, much less homosexuality. From my perspective, the notion of taking away funding from these kids, to punish the kids and prevent them from having a life changing experience, because of the stance of some unknown board somewhere, strikes me as really bizarre, and slightly vindictive and spiteful.
Whatever your opinion of these bureaucrats somewhere, there is no need to call for withdrawing your support or withdrawing whatever funding exists, because you are only going to be hurting kids in the end and not whatever assholes you want to punish.
Or they could find a less hateful organization to join to find a life changing experience.
On October 09 2012 06:13 jdseemoreglass wrote: I will keep this in mind when you are moderating a thread, but we must also keep in mind that not all mods are so reasonable, clear, or consistent. When you say "in the past" I'm not sure how far back you are going... Anyway, some will aggressively moderate opinions without warning, and it has a kind of chilling effect on posting in my opinion, I myself have stifled my honest opinion in discussions, because half the time I have no idea if an opinion is acceptable or not, since it depends largely on the mod or mood or whatever.
You can always check the ABL topic in the closed forum to see who banned for what. Micronesia is engaging in this topic as a regular poster and, as far as I know, hasn't banned anyone in it. Likewise I came into this topic as a banling and saw someone with a long history of awful posting imply that those fairies are out to molest children and handed out a ban. TL staff are generally unpaid community members but where the roles may overlap I believe we have a good track record of maintaining a responsible distinction of roles. If you would like to discuss this further then take it to website feedback.
On October 09 2012 06:45 FabledIntegral wrote: It's a Christian organization... should we force churches to marry homosexuals where homosexual marriage is legal? I think that's stupid. It's explicitly based on Christian morals.
Although I'd say at the same time it's a stupid fucking cop out. I highly doubt they'd deny membership to someone who partakes in premarital sex, but who knows. I think the anti-homosexual view by them is utterly stupid, but I think they should have the right to have it.
Then why is it okay for them to get official government support?
On October 09 2012 06:45 FabledIntegral wrote: It's a Christian organization... should we force churches to marry homosexuals where homosexual marriage is legal? I think that's stupid. It's explicitly based on Christian morals.
Although I'd say at the same time it's a stupid fucking cop out. I highly doubt they'd deny membership to someone who partakes in premarital sex, but who knows. I think the anti-homosexual view by them is utterly stupid, but I think they should have the right to have it.
Then why is it okay for them to get official government support?
Yeah I'm retarded *whoops*. I even knew they did, I just needed a refresher.
Hello! I am a First Class scout (practically a star just need to do a board of review) and i am appalled how the BSA has continued to act negatively to the gay community in not allowing gay eagle scouts. While i am straight, i am a firm believer of gay rights. Being an eagle scout is incredibly hard (in fact only around 3% of boy scouts achieve it) and not being recognized for this achievement is incredibly disappointing. Even though he is turning 18 on Monday, i hope that the BSA still awards him for his accomplishments. 2 things that people often get confused is that when they think of boy scouts they think of 7 and 9 year olds while boy scouts is 10-18. (or grade level Below boy scouts is cub scouts. The BSA thinks that if they do not allow gays in their troops, child abuse/molestation will go down. While this may seem like a good idea to some, it is practically the same as banning middle eastern people from entering the United States to decrease the likelihood of terrorist attacks. Another view is that gays are some how "abominations of god" or something or another when that is simply not the case. I hope that the BSA changes these acts of bigotry and welcomes gays in Boy Scouts by not only giving this scout his eagle, but by also welcoming other gays in troops. In addition, the BSA tried to justify their acts by also saying that the scout did not believe in god. While boy scouts are firm believers in their "Duty to God" and such, believing in a higher being and believing in god are the exact same thing[b][/b] If the BSA only allowed Christians, what culture diversity would there be? Where would the freedom of religion have gone? I believe if any changes are to come to the BSA, they must first happen in states i.e. gay rights. Once Amurrica (ahem America) has allowed more gay rights i think the BSA will be put in a very precarious position and be semi forced to allow gays in boy scouts. GL HF BSA! hopefully we will get a gg soon.
On October 09 2012 05:56 Epishade wrote: This thread sure brings out the stupidity of some people, arguing that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles... We should just ban all catholic clergymen from becoming leaders as well. Lord knows they love molestin' kids.
On October 09 2012 03:15 qrs wrote:
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 even know how to respond to this. What a ridiculous comment. "Most rapes are committed by males" implies that we should not allow any male leaders in BSA because they are more likely to rape the kids than female leaders are...
When did people start thinking that the actions of 1 or 2 people started characterizing the whole group of people that they were a part of? It's like saying Islam is a violent religion because of all the Muslim terrorists...
I think you are extrapolating too much here. People are pointing out a very basic correlation. To put it another way, who is more likely to rape a woman, a straight man or a gay man? To ask this question is not to assume that all straight men are rapists, nor that all men are rapists. It's only to acknowledge the obvious fact that statistically you will have more rapes of women by straight males than by gay males or straight women or gay women.
It is absolutely not a "very basic correlation." The very obvious implication of that statement is that gay men are more likely to rape young boys. It is false and idiotic. Pedophiles are more likely to rape young boys. Gay men are not pedophiles. If that silly association between homosexuality and pedophilia is still stuck in your mind you have absolutely nothing to contribute to this discussion.
A straight man is more likely to be a straight pedophile, and a gay man is more likely to be a gay pedophile. Again, I think this is fairly obvious and straight forward correlation. This is not to imply that either straight men nor gay men are inherently pedophiles by virtue of their sexual orientation.
We may have conflicting sources but my understanding is that pedophilia has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Pedophiles are just as likely to rape girls as boys regardless of their orientation.
Klondikebar has it nailed on the bar. The majority of pedophiles have victims of both sexes regardless of their sexual orientation. However, we shouldn't even be using the term pedophile to discuss the issue here. Pedophiles are interested in pre-pubescent children, often those under 11 (as this is when puberty overwhelmingly begins); an age group that is barely within the confines of the BSA (roughly 11-18, around 5th/6th grade). If you want to talk about pedophilia and high profile cases, just look at the John Geoghan and the Boston archdiocese. If people actually want to be correct with their terminology, then what we should be discussing are child molesters. Pedophilia is when a person has a conscious sexual interest in prepubertal children whereas a child molester is not driven by intense sexual urges. In fact, many pedophiles STOP sexually abusing a child once he or she hits puberty..See Sandusky for instance. Not all child molesters are pedophiles and neither are all pedophiles child molesters.
On October 09 2012 05:56 Epishade wrote: This thread sure brings out the stupidity of some people, arguing that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles... We should just ban all catholic clergymen from becoming leaders as well. Lord knows they love molestin' kids.
On October 09 2012 03:15 qrs wrote:
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 even know how to respond to this. What a ridiculous comment. "Most rapes are committed by males" implies that we should not allow any male leaders in BSA because they are more likely to rape the kids than female leaders are...
When did people start thinking that the actions of 1 or 2 people started characterizing the whole group of people that they were a part of? It's like saying Islam is a violent religion because of all the Muslim terrorists...
I think you are extrapolating too much here. People are pointing out a very basic correlation. To put it another way, who is more likely to rape a woman, a straight man or a gay man? To ask this question is not to assume that all straight men are rapists, nor that all men are rapists. It's only to acknowledge the obvious fact that statistically you will have more rapes of women by straight males than by gay males or straight women or gay women.
It is absolutely not a "very basic correlation." The very obvious implication of that statement is that gay men are more likely to rape young boys. It is false and idiotic. Pedophiles are more likely to rape young boys. Gay men are not pedophiles. If that silly association between homosexuality and pedophilia is still stuck in your mind you have absolutely nothing to contribute to this discussion.
A straight man is more likely to be a straight pedophile, and a gay man is more likely to be a gay pedophile. Again, I think this is fairly obvious and straight forward correlation. This is not to imply that either straight men nor gay men are inherently pedophiles by virtue of their sexual orientation.
We may have conflicting sources but my understanding is that pedophilia has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Pedophiles are just as likely to rape girls as boys regardless of their orientation.
Klondikebar has it nailed on the bar. The majority of pedophiles have victims of both sexes regardless of their sexual orientation. However, we shouldn't even be using the term pedophile to discuss the issue here. Pedophiles are interested in pre-pubescent children, often those under 11 (as this is when puberty overwhelmingly begins); an age group that is barely within the confines of the BSA (roughly 11-18, around 5th/6th grade). If you want to talk about pedophilia and high profile cases, just look at the John Geoghan and the Boston archdiocese. If people actually want to be correct with their terminology, then what we should be discussing are child molesters. Pedophilia is when a person has a conscious sexual interest in prepubertal children whereas a child molester is not driven by intense sexual urges. In fact, many pedophiles STOP sexually abusing a child once he or she hits puberty..See Sandusky for instance. Not all child molesters are pedophiles and neither are all pedophiles child molesters.
I understand all of this. I've given up trying to explain this distinction to people and simply use the term pedophile out of laziness. In either case the suggestion that these individuals have absolutely no sexual preference strikes me as rather absurd.
On October 09 2012 04:36 jdseemoreglass wrote: I was in the Boy Scouts for years. It was really a life-changing experience in a way, you can experience nature in a way your average ipod touch carrying kid may never get to in their life. You can learn basic techniques which in the past would be considered common sense, like how to tell direction a dozen different ways, how to tie a knot that won't slip, how to build or start a fire. I could go on and on about the benefits of a good boy scout troop.
In all the time I was in boy scouts, the subject of sexuality never came up, much less homosexuality. From my perspective, the notion of taking away funding from these kids, to punish the kids and prevent them from having a life changing experience, because of the stance of some unknown board somewhere, strikes me as really bizarre, and slightly vindictive and spiteful.
Whatever your opinion of these bureaucrats somewhere, there is no need to call for withdrawing your support or withdrawing whatever funding exists, because you are only going to be hurting kids in the end and not whatever assholes you want to punish.
Or they could find a less hateful organization to join to find a life changing experience.
On October 09 2012 05:56 Epishade wrote: This thread sure brings out the stupidity of some people, arguing that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles... We should just ban all catholic clergymen from becoming leaders as well. Lord knows they love molestin' kids.
On October 09 2012 03:15 qrs wrote:
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 even know how to respond to this. What a ridiculous comment. "Most rapes are committed by males" implies that we should not allow any male leaders in BSA because they are more likely to rape the kids than female leaders are...
When did people start thinking that the actions of 1 or 2 people started characterizing the whole group of people that they were a part of? It's like saying Islam is a violent religion because of all the Muslim terrorists...
I think you are extrapolating too much here. People are pointing out a very basic correlation. To put it another way, who is more likely to rape a woman, a straight man or a gay man? To ask this question is not to assume that all straight men are rapists, nor that all men are rapists. It's only to acknowledge the obvious fact that statistically you will have more rapes of women by straight males than by gay males or straight women or gay women.
It is absolutely not a "very basic correlation." The very obvious implication of that statement is that gay men are more likely to rape young boys. It is false and idiotic. Pedophiles are more likely to rape young boys. Gay men are not pedophiles. If that silly association between homosexuality and pedophilia is still stuck in your mind you have absolutely nothing to contribute to this discussion.
A straight man is more likely to be a straight pedophile, and a gay man is more likely to be a gay pedophile. Again, I think this is fairly obvious and straight forward correlation. This is not to imply that either straight men nor gay men are inherently pedophiles by virtue of their sexual orientation.
We may have conflicting sources but my understanding is that pedophilia has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Pedophiles are just as likely to rape girls as boys regardless of their orientation.
Klondikebar has it nailed on the bar. The majority of pedophiles have victims of both sexes regardless of their sexual orientation. However, we shouldn't even be using the term pedophile to discuss the issue here. Pedophiles are interested in pre-pubescent children, often those under 11 (as this is when puberty overwhelmingly begins); an age group that is barely within the confines of the BSA (roughly 11-18, around 5th/6th grade). If you want to talk about pedophilia and high profile cases, just look at the John Geoghan and the Boston archdiocese. If people actually want to be correct with their terminology, then what we should be discussing are child molesters. Pedophilia is when a person has a conscious sexual interest in prepubertal children whereas a child molester is not driven by intense sexual urges. In fact, many pedophiles STOP sexually abusing a child once he or she hits puberty..See Sandusky for instance. Not all child molesters are pedophiles and neither are all pedophiles child molesters.
I understand all of this. I've given up trying to explain this distinction to people and simply use the term pedophile out of laziness. In either case the suggestion that these individuals have absolutely no sexual preference strikes me as rather absurd.
It's not that they absolutely do not have any sexual preference. Like with anything, there are typologies of the pedophile and child molester. The two most widely used are the FBI typology and the MTC:CM3 that attempts to classify offenders on a few different levels. The MTC:CM3 is more commonly used, moreso by researchers, and finds that the majority of those in the high fixation-low social competence preferred males (of these, the majority have been victimized themselves by a male as a child and it is believed that this is a highly important causal factor. For others, it may be biological or some other event may have happened and there was a connection made between the sexuality of children). The reason why they do not prefer a gender is mostly due to their failure of either finding or developing an age appropriate partner. As such, when looking for children to victimize, they often choose whoever is available to them based upon a variety of factors through the grooming process.
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.
If that's true, I don't see how the government can justify giving the boy scouts these benefits if they don't also provide them to other organizations like camp quest. Does anybody know if they do?
The reason this is so startling is that so many people have bought into the conservative narrative that even though the rules we encounter in life are not equal in regards to sexuality, the actual practice is. Sure the BSA can string you along for years and then deny you the reward for your hard work based on sexuality but it does not happen. Sure in 36 states you can be fired from your job at any time for no other reason than sexuality but it doesnt happen. Well welcome to reality.
This is why, even if you personally do not see the effects, it is important to change the rules to reflect the evolving moral standard and the gay movement is very far from this (I doubt I will see this in my lifetime). The civil rights act forced troop integration across racial lines in opposition to the "core moral values" many leaders of the day had and we need a similar policy today.
Leadership is not always a reflection of the grassroots level of the organization. The BSA have done some really wonderful things for society, so don't let this one incident ruin their reputation forever. I understand the anger felt (as I felt it too), but we have to keep it in mind that the issue is with the leaders at the national level, probably not your local boy scouts.
On October 09 2012 08:39 KookyMonster wrote: Leadership is not always a reflection of the grassroots level of the organization. The BSA have done some really wonderful things for society, so don't let this one incident ruin their reputation forever. I understand the anger felt (as I felt it too), but we have to keep it in mind that the issue is with the leaders at the national level, probably not your local boy scouts.
So if the grassroots is so against it, how can the leadership get away with such policy?
And that doesn't change the reality that it takes one person that doesn't overly like you to find out you are gay and/or atheist to get you kicked out of the boy scouts in the United States. If the scouts are so accepting, how can that be? And what is the grassroots concretely doing to change that?
The fact that not every member of the BSA is homophobic and anti-atheist doesn't mean that the organization as a whole isn't. It clearly is.
On October 09 2012 08:39 KookyMonster wrote: Leadership is not always a reflection of the grassroots level of the organization. The BSA have done some really wonderful things for society, so don't let this one incident ruin their reputation forever. I understand the anger felt (as I felt it too), but we have to keep it in mind that the issue is with the leaders at the national level, probably not your local boy scouts.
This isn't just one incident, this has been going on for years.
The worst part is his last project before he was to become an eagle scout was a "tolerance wall". Seriously, fuck them. On another note, is the petition site linked in the site the OP linked a reputable site? I want to sign the petition, but when they ask for my name, address, zip code and other stuff I get kinda nervous.
On October 09 2012 05:56 Epishade wrote: This thread sure brings out the stupidity of some people, arguing that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles... We should just ban all catholic clergymen from becoming leaders as well. Lord knows they love molestin' kids.
On October 09 2012 03:15 qrs wrote:
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 even know how to respond to this. What a ridiculous comment. "Most rapes are committed by males" implies that we should not allow any male leaders in BSA because they are more likely to rape the kids than female leaders are...
When did people start thinking that the actions of 1 or 2 people started characterizing the whole group of people that they were a part of? It's like saying Islam is a violent religion because of all the Muslim terrorists...
I think you are extrapolating too much here. People are pointing out a very basic correlation. To put it another way, who is more likely to rape a woman, a straight man or a gay man? To ask this question is not to assume that all straight men are rapists, nor that all men are rapists. It's only to acknowledge the obvious fact that statistically you will have more rapes of women by straight males than by gay males or straight women or gay women.
It is absolutely not a "very basic correlation." The very obvious implication of that statement is that gay men are more likely to rape young boys. It is false and idiotic. Pedophiles are more likely to rape young boys. Gay men are not pedophiles. If that silly association between homosexuality and pedophilia is still stuck in your mind you have absolutely nothing to contribute to this discussion.
Well:just for the sake of argument. Gay man are more likely to rape young boys then straight man are. It would be difficult to argue otherwise,straight man would rape young girls maybe, but not boys. Both the changes are extremely slim off course, and the change that a straight man rapes a young girl is probably bigger then the change a gay man rapes a young boy but the correlation mentioned is indeed a verry basic correlation Its also verry irrelevant, both changes as extremely small. People who are against gay scouts should realy look for better arguments , as this one is just appaling.
I am not sure how much people here know about the history of boy scouting and the person who founded the scouts, Baden powel. Its quiet interesting and this is not the first controversy regarding scouting,its ideological backgrounds are somewhat obscure to say the least, and could be a reason to not wanting to be part of scouting at all. Modern scouting has evolved away from its ideological roots (luckily i might add) and it now is an awesome experience for manny young people, some of the ideological roots are still there though. Maybe this is why the top of the scouting seems to be alot more conservative then the normal members. Its sad though that young people cant have an organisation for themselves free from this ideolocal weight they have to carry with it, I am sure noone is waiting for that but it just comes with the package.
On October 09 2012 05:56 Epishade wrote: This thread sure brings out the stupidity of some people, arguing that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles... We should just ban all catholic clergymen from becoming leaders as well. Lord knows they love molestin' kids.
On October 09 2012 03:15 qrs wrote:
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 even know how to respond to this. What a ridiculous comment. "Most rapes are committed by males" implies that we should not allow any male leaders in BSA because they are more likely to rape the kids than female leaders are...
When did people start thinking that the actions of 1 or 2 people started characterizing the whole group of people that they were a part of? It's like saying Islam is a violent religion because of all the Muslim terrorists...
I think you are extrapolating too much here. People are pointing out a very basic correlation. To put it another way, who is more likely to rape a woman, a straight man or a gay man? To ask this question is not to assume that all straight men are rapists, nor that all men are rapists. It's only to acknowledge the obvious fact that statistically you will have more rapes of women by straight males than by gay males or straight women or gay women.
It is absolutely not a "very basic correlation." The very obvious implication of that statement is that gay men are more likely to rape young boys. It is false and idiotic. Pedophiles are more likely to rape young boys. Gay men are not pedophiles. If that silly association between homosexuality and pedophilia is still stuck in your mind you have absolutely nothing to contribute to this discussion.
Well:just for the sake of argument. Gay man are more likely to rape young boys then straight man are. It would be difficult to argue otherwise,straight man would rape young girls maybe, but not boys. Both the changes are extremely slim off course, and the change that a straight man rapes a young girl is probably bigger then the change a gay man rapes a young boy but the correlation mentioned is indeed a verry basic correlation Its also verry irrelevant, both changes as extremely small. People who are against gay scouts should realy look for better arguments , as this one is just appaling.
I am not sure how much people here know about the history of boy scouting and the person who founded the scouts, Baden powel. Its quiet interesting and this is not the first controversy regarding scouting,its ideological backgrounds are somewhat obscure to say the least, and could be a reason to not wanting to be part of scouting at all. Modern scouting has evolved away from its ideological roots (luckily i might add) and it now is an awesome experience for manny young people, some of the idelogical roots are still there though. Maybe this is why the top of the scouting seems to be alot more conservative then the normal members. Its sad though that young people cant have an organisation for themselves free from this ideolocal weight they have to carry with it, I am sure noone is waiting for that but it just comes with the package.
People who are against gay scouts should realy look for better arguments , as this one is just appaling.
I'm against gays. I don't believe you are born with a sexual orientation. it is a learned behavior. Im not a homophobe by any means. I have a gay friend and several gay girl friends. I just don't think it is right. i think there is a reason there is man and woman. you don't see gays in animals. maybe occasional but if animals were gay they would all go extinct. theres a reason gays cant' reproduce. it wasn't intended. Therefore it is wrong.
On October 09 2012 10:35 GhostTK wrote: I'm against gays. I don't believe you are born with a sexual orientation. it is a learned behavior. Im not a homophobe by any means. I have a gay friend and several gay girl friends. I just don't think it is right. i think there is a reason there is man and woman. you don't see gays in animals. maybe occasional but if animals were gay they would all go extinct. theres a reason gays cant' reproduce. it wasn't intended. Therefore it is wrong.
Homosexual tendencies have been observed in nature. Species don't go extinct because while some specimens may have same sex attraction it's never something that "spreed" to the entire specie.
There is a reason there is a "man" and a "woman". It's because the species needs people to reproduce. It, however, does not need every member of the specie to reproduce.
Yes, gays can't reproduce. Because they aren't having reproductive sex.
Humans living in homes, driving cars, eating processed food, using the Internet or playing StarCraft aren't "intended". So you think those things are wrong, too?
On October 09 2012 10:35 GhostTK wrote: I'm against gays. I don't believe you are born with a sexual orientation. it is a learned behavior. Im not a homophobe by any means. I have a gay friend and several gay girl friends. I just don't think it is right. i think there is a reason there is man and woman. you don't see gays in animals. maybe occasional but if animals were gay they would all go extinct. theres a reason gays cant' reproduce. it wasn't intended. Therefore it is wrong.
On October 09 2012 10:35 GhostTK wrote: I'm against gays. I don't believe you are born with a sexual orientation. it is a learned behavior. Im not a homophobe by any means. I have a gay friend and several gay girl friends. I just don't think it is right. i think there is a reason there is man and woman. you don't see gays in animals. maybe occasional but if animals were gay they would all go extinct. theres a reason gays cant' reproduce. it wasn't intended. Therefore it is wrong.
Ahh, the classic, "I have [x] friends but I still have a problem..." troll. Taking the bait anyway:
Animals display homosexual behavior all the time. Just look it up when you have some time I don't believe you are born with a sexual orientation either to be honest because there haven't been any "gay genes" definitively defined. However, does it matter to you if other people are gay? Does it affect you? Yeah, there are man and woman because when they have sex they further the human race. That doesn't make not furthering the human race wrong, though, unless you're one of those people that only approves of procreative, chaste relationships.
On October 09 2012 07:35 KaiserKieran wrote: Hello! I am a First Class scout (practically a star just need to do a board of review) and i am appalled how the BSA has continued to act negatively to the gay community in not allowing gay eagle scouts. While i am straight, i am a firm believer of gay rights. Being an eagle scout is incredibly hard (in fact only around 3% of boy scouts achieve it) and not being recognized for this achievement is incredibly disappointing. Even though he is turning 18 on Monday, i hope that the BSA still awards him for his accomplishments. 2 things that people often get confused is that when they think of boy scouts they think of 7 and 9 year olds while boy scouts is 10-18. (or grade level Below boy scouts is cub scouts. The BSA thinks that if they do not allow gays in their troops, child abuse/molestation will go down. While this may seem like a good idea to some, it is practically the same as banning middle eastern people from entering the United States to decrease the likelihood of terrorist attacks. Another view is that gays are some how "abominations of god" or something or another when that is simply not the case. I hope that the BSA changes these acts of bigotry and welcomes gays in Boy Scouts by not only giving this scout his eagle, but by also welcoming other gays in troops. In addition, the BSA tried to justify their acts by also saying that the scout did not believe in god. While boy scouts are firm believers in their "Duty to God" and such, believing in a higher being and believing in god are the exact same thing[b] If the BSA only allowed Christians, what culture diversity would there be? Where would the freedom of religion have gone? I believe if any changes are to come to the BSA, they must first happen in states i.e. gay rights. Once Amurrica (ahem America) has allowed more gay rights i think the BSA will be put in a very precarious position and be semi forced to allow gays in boy scouts. GL HF BSA! hopefully we will get a gg soon.
[/b]
I am a life scout and will do my Eagle Board of Review once I finish all the paperwork in the next couple of days hear back from the council. This means I have done everything but the final "test" where I relate my experiences and get tested on what I learned by some officials and adults in my troop/
First off, gay-policy varies between troops. The scoutmaster's son in my troop talks and acts like a stereotypical homosexual. Doesn't mean that he is one, but I would bet that he is. I don't think anyone in my troop cares about if you're gay (at least nobody in charge). Nobody cares about religion either. I'm an atheist, I have two friends in my troop who are atheist who actually told one of the adults that when inquired about their religion. He didn't care, he just told them to say that they were agnostic-christian. If you are a member of a very conservative troop or are dealing with the council, just abide by don't ask, don't tell. It sucks and it's not fair, but it's far smarter than walking into a room of Christians announcing that they are wrong. To be honest this gay-atheist guy was probably just too brazen, which is stupid in the BSA.
I disagree that becoming an Eagle Scout is hard, it just takes time and you have to start from when you are younger. In my troop all of the people that "stick with" scouts become Eagles, you just have to be dedicated and willing to work.It does suck that the guy isn't being recognized for it though, because the only reasons I, and many others, participate are the benefits in the workplace or in applications for college.
As a boy scout (going to be Eagle soon), I have always been confused by how a bunch of males camping together in the woods with no female presence whatsoever can discriminate against gays.
I have a friend in my troop who I believe is gay (he never officially told me, but I accidentally read parts of his diary). It would make me feel terrible if he was kicked out because of it.
On October 09 2012 10:35 GhostTK wrote: I'm against gays. I don't believe you are born with a sexual orientation. it is a learned behavior. Im not a homophobe by any means. I have a gay friend and several gay girl friends. I just don't think it is right. i think there is a reason there is man and woman. you don't see gays in animals. maybe occasional but if animals were gay they would all go extinct. theres a reason gays cant' reproduce. it wasn't intended. Therefore it is wrong.
So to get this straight, you believe that it's a choice for a person to choose to be bullied, ridiculed and assaulted by bigots their entire life just because, well whatever it's a choice!
Just you're... gah everything that's wrong with the human species.
Here's how I imagine a conversation with you.
"I just don't think it's right!"
Well why's that?
"It's a learned behavior!"
Oh and?
"THERE ARE NO GAY ANIMALS!"
Well there are... so what are you getting at?
"Um man and woman! It's what makes sense!"
Well makes sense to who? Through history homosexuality has played a very common role all over. In fact our society based on religious principles made up from thin air for political purposes is one of the only societies that takes sex so seriously. It's like an annerexic disorder.
On October 09 2012 10:35 GhostTK wrote: I'm against gays. I don't believe you are born with a sexual orientation. it is a learned behavior. Im not a homophobe by any means. I have a gay friend and several gay girl friends. I just don't think it is right. i think there is a reason there is man and woman. you don't see gays in animals. maybe occasional but if animals were gay they would all go extinct. theres a reason gays cant' reproduce. it wasn't intended. Therefore it is wrong.
Ahh, the classic, "I have [x] friends but I still have a problem..." troll. Taking the bait anyway:
Animals display homosexual behavior all the time. Just look it up when you have some time I don't believe you are born with a sexual orientation either to be honest because there haven't been any "gay genes" definitively defined. However, does it matter to you if other people are gay? Does it affect you? Yeah, there are man and woman because when they have sex they further the human race. That doesn't make not furthering the human race wrong, though, unless you're one of those people that only approves of procreative, chaste relationships.
On October 09 2012 07:35 KaiserKieran wrote: Hello! I am a First Class scout (practically a star just need to do a board of review) and i am appalled how the BSA has continued to act negatively to the gay community in not allowing gay eagle scouts. While i am straight, i am a firm believer of gay rights. Being an eagle scout is incredibly hard (in fact only around 3% of boy scouts achieve it) and not being recognized for this achievement is incredibly disappointing. Even though he is turning 18 on Monday, i hope that the BSA still awards him for his accomplishments. 2 things that people often get confused is that when they think of boy scouts they think of 7 and 9 year olds while boy scouts is 10-18. (or grade level Below boy scouts is cub scouts. The BSA thinks that if they do not allow gays in their troops, child abuse/molestation will go down. While this may seem like a good idea to some, it is practically the same as banning middle eastern people from entering the United States to decrease the likelihood of terrorist attacks. Another view is that gays are some how "abominations of god" or something or another when that is simply not the case. I hope that the BSA changes these acts of bigotry and welcomes gays in Boy Scouts by not only giving this scout his eagle, but by also welcoming other gays in troops. In addition, the BSA tried to justify their acts by also saying that the scout did not believe in god. While boy scouts are firm believers in their "Duty to God" and such, believing in a higher being and believing in god are the exact same thing[b] If the BSA only allowed Christians, what culture diversity would there be? Where would the freedom of religion have gone? I believe if any changes are to come to the BSA, they must first happen in states i.e. gay rights. Once Amurrica (ahem America) has allowed more gay rights i think the BSA will be put in a very precarious position and be semi forced to allow gays in boy scouts. GL HF BSA! hopefully we will get a gg soon.
I am a life scout and will do my Eagle Board of Review once I finish all the paperwork in the next couple of days hear back from the council. This means I have done everything but the final "test" where I relate my experiences and get tested on what I learned by some officials and adults in my troop/
First off, gay-policy varies between troops. The scoutmaster's son in my troop talks and acts like a stereotypical homosexual. Doesn't mean that he is one, but I would bet that he is. I don't think anyone in my troop cares about if you're gay (at least nobody in charge). Nobody cares about religion either. I'm an atheist, I have two friends in my troop who are atheist who actually told one of the adults that when inquired about their religion. He didn't care, he just told them to say that they were agnostic-christian. If you are a member of a very conservative troop or are dealing with the council, just abide by don't ask, don't tell. It sucks and it's not fair, but it's far smarter than walking into a room of Christians announcing that they are wrong. To be honest this gay-atheist guy was probably just too brazen, which is stupid in the BSA.
I disagree that becoming an Eagle Scout is hard, it just takes time and you have to start from when you are younger. In my troop all of the people that "stick with" scouts become Eagles, you just have to be dedicated and willing to work.It does suck that the guy isn't being recognized for it though, because the only reasons I, and many others, participate are the benefits in the workplace or in applications for college.
[/b]
It's a pretty sad state of affairs that the most lenient and tolerant people in the organization tell you to lie about your beliefs to avoid problems.
Guys, GhostTK's post was totally only flamebait. I can't believe people actually responded to him.... m-(
@Whitewing:
It's a pretty sad state of affairs that the most lenient and tolerant people in the organization tell you to lie about your beliefs to avoid problems.
Or just not bring them up in the first place?... There's a time and a place for it, and that's usually privately between parents and child. I can't fathom a reason necessary enough to broach the subject publicly at a Scout function, or even between Scout leaders.
It's a pretty sad state of affairs that the most lenient and tolerant people in the organization tell you to lie about your beliefs to avoid problems.
Or just not bring them up in the first place?... There's a time and a place for it, and that's usually privately between parents and child. I can't fathom a reason necessary enough to broach the subject publicly at a Scout function, or even between Scout leaders.
It's in their charter that religion is super important to the boy scouts. Seriously, it's one of their core values, and it says as much on their official website. Here's a link to the page:
If being homosexual gives no advantage to us as a race evolution would of gotten rid of it a long time ago. Homosexuality is something genetic and there are multiple studies on this. Being born with the "gay" gene does not necessarily mean one is gay. Homosexuality exists for cooperative reproduction and to limit the overpopulation problem. Homosexuals have their own place within society and I just can't be bothered over senseless bickering. A lot of religious organizations are against gays regardless of sex. This is just another reason why religion within itself is absolutely flawed. Can't wait for mankind to get over this "religion" vice. Then just maybe we will all progress even further as a race.
It's a pretty sad state of affairs that the most lenient and tolerant people in the organization tell you to lie about your beliefs to avoid problems.
Or just not bring them up in the first place?... There's a time and a place for it, and that's usually privately between parents and child. I can't fathom a reason necessary enough to broach the subject publicly at a Scout function, or even between Scout leaders.
Life doesn't work that way. Kids talk amongst themselves, photos are shared, gossip travels around and questions are asked.
It was an adult who inquired about the atheist's beliefs in that story related by the Scout a few posts back. Not the kid.
On October 09 2012 00:47 neversummer wrote: First of all I don't think anyone is supporting the Boy Scouts of America.
Secondly I applaud them for maintaining their position in the midst of criticism from the community; I've never really cared for what is "politically" correct and quite frankly I don't think gay men should be prancing around with large groups of 8-10 year old boys.
User was temp banned for this post.
Temp ban for this post? I'm sorry but I just do not think it's fair? Sure, he didn't get the age group correctly but so now anyone who doesn't agree with having homosexuals in boy scouts should get a temp ban? The user stated their opinion and I'm sure that there are a lot of people who would agree, though obviously not openly on a forum like TL. I swear, people who have one thing to say against homosexuality get bullied 1000x more than homosexuals themselves.
Why even let this thread live if the only posts that are allowed are the homosexual praising ones and agreement with OP ones?
On October 09 2012 00:47 neversummer wrote: First of all I don't think anyone is supporting the Boy Scouts of America.
Secondly I applaud them for maintaining their position in the midst of criticism from the community; I've never really cared for what is "politically" correct and quite frankly I don't think gay men should be prancing around with large groups of 8-10 year old boys.
User was temp banned for this post.
Temp ban for this post? I'm sorry but I just do not think it's fair? Sure, he didn't get the age group correctly but so now anyone who doesn't agree with having homosexuals in boy scouts should get a temp ban? The user stated their opinion and I'm sure that there are a lot of people who would agree, though obviously not openly on a forum like TL. I swear, people who have one thing to say against homosexuality get bullied 1000x more than homosexuals themselves.
Why even let this thread live if the only posts that are allowed are the homosexual praising ones and agreement with OP ones?
as someone who might agree with him, i have to say, what he said was wrong, and was said in a needlessly offensive way. if he had left out the "prancing around" part, then you might have a point.
as to the OP:
that sucks. poor kid. but a policy is a policy i guess...
On October 09 2012 00:47 neversummer wrote: First of all I don't think anyone is supporting the Boy Scouts of America.
Secondly I applaud them for maintaining their position in the midst of criticism from the community; I've never really cared for what is "politically" correct and quite frankly I don't think gay men should be prancing around with large groups of 8-10 year old boys.
User was temp banned for this post.
Temp ban for this post? I'm sorry but I just do not think it's fair? Sure, he didn't get the age group correctly but so now anyone who doesn't agree with having homosexuals in boy scouts should get a temp ban? The user stated their opinion and I'm sure that there are a lot of people who would agree, though obviously not openly on a forum like TL. I swear, people who have one thing to say against homosexuality get bullied 1000x more than homosexuals themselves.
Why even let this thread live if the only posts that are allowed are the homosexual praising ones and agreement with OP ones?
Issues with moderation go in Website Feedback not in the thread itself. You can also check the exact reason a user was banned on the Automated Ban List.
OT - As an Eagle Scout myself, I cannot say I am pleased with the stance the BSA has taken.
On October 09 2012 12:19 shizaep wrote:I swear, people who have one thing to say against homosexuality get bullied 1000x more than homosexuals themselves.
Are you talking about TL or society in general? And bullied? If that's the extent of "bullying" let's consider ourselves lucky. Or do you have any other examples more egregious?
On October 09 2012 00:47 neversummer wrote: First of all I don't think anyone is supporting the Boy Scouts of America.
Secondly I applaud them for maintaining their position in the midst of criticism from the community; I've never really cared for what is "politically" correct and quite frankly I don't think gay men should be prancing around with large groups of 8-10 year old boys.
User was temp banned for this post.
I think you're mistaking homosexual men for pedophiles.. Do you think just because someone is gay, they want to sleep with everyone of their gender? Narrow-minded thinking such as that is a disappointment.
On October 09 2012 10:35 GhostTK wrote: I'm against gays. I don't believe you are born with a sexual orientation. it is a learned behavior. Im not a homophobe by any means. I have a gay friend and several gay girl friends. I just don't think it is right. i think there is a reason there is man and woman. you don't see gays in animals. maybe occasional but if animals were gay they would all go extinct. theres a reason gays cant' reproduce. it wasn't intended. Therefore it is wrong.
I really think it is unfortunate that the Boy Scouts insist on holding this position because all it does it show the organization in a bad light. What I am interested in knowing is whether their dependance on local religious institutions is somehow pressuring them to keep this rather prejudiced policy alive or whether it is just the work of a few bigoted officials. Either way these policies need to be reversed, officially allowing people of any sexual orientation and atheists to be boy scouts.
I am an Eagle Scout and in my local troop your religious beliefs or sexual orientation was a complete non-issue. Whenever such policies were talked about many adult leaders would bring up their devotion towards Pastafarianism and dismiss this "official Boy Scout policy". Meeting with other troops, I get the sense that my troop's thoughts on this are really what the majority of leaders believe (at least in my area.) So really, I get the sense that the National Organization is really at a disconnect with local troops and is supporting a minority of heavily prejudiced individuals that should not be near any Boy Scout leadership position.
So, am I saying, "its okay that these policies exist, because most local troops don't follow official policy anyway." No! I am not. The Boy Scouts deserve the flack that they get for this. I just think its an absolute shame that an organization that is not really relevant at the local level and a few bigoted leaders have the potential to ruin what I believe is a very rewarding experience for many of today's youth. I know many other people already have put their thoughts into this topic and have mentioned similar things but these are my 2 cents.
On October 09 2012 11:59 cLAN.Anax wrote: Guys, GhostTK's post was totally only flamebait. I can't believe people actually responded to him.... m-(
@Whitewing:
It's a pretty sad state of affairs that the most lenient and tolerant people in the organization tell you to lie about your beliefs to avoid problems.
Or just not bring them up in the first place?... There's a time and a place for it, and that's usually privately between parents and child. I can't fathom a reason necessary enough to broach the subject publicly at a Scout function, or even between Scout leaders.
It's in their charter that religion is super important to the boy scouts. Seriously, it's one of their core values, and it says as much on their official website. Here's a link to the page:
It's also mentioned in most of the other pages you can look at.
I'm an Eagle Scout, I know all about it, lol. You just have to believe in a God to be a Scout; it doesn't matter which religion you affiliate with. That's the only worldview thing that an adult leader should be asking when conducting a Board of Review.
On October 09 2012 12:02 Doubting wrote: why does it matter, it isn't like they are being denied a job or something good.
Achieving the rank of Eagle Scout is kind of a big deal for a lot of young men, myself definitely included. It's highly looked upon by employers, professors, peers, etc.
On October 09 2012 11:59 cLAN.Anax wrote: Guys, GhostTK's post was totally only flamebait. I can't believe people actually responded to him.... m-(
@Whitewing:
It's a pretty sad state of affairs that the most lenient and tolerant people in the organization tell you to lie about your beliefs to avoid problems.
Or just not bring them up in the first place?... There's a time and a place for it, and that's usually privately between parents and child. I can't fathom a reason necessary enough to broach the subject publicly at a Scout function, or even between Scout leaders.
Life doesn't work that way. Kids talk amongst themselves, photos are shared, gossip travels around and questions are asked.
It was an adult who inquired about the atheist's beliefs in that story related by the Scout a few posts back. Not the kid.
If an atheist Scout is questioned about his beliefs by other Scouts, and he doesn't want to talk about it, he shouldn't have to. I'd actually argue that the kid is being mildly bullied in that situation. Again, that specific discussion, regarding their belief or lack thereof in a God, is meant for the privacy of a Board of Review. That's different from the subject of homosexuality, which shouldn't be brought up first by the leaders at all. If the kid proactively brings it up himself (which I still think is what happened here with Mr. Andersen), then the leaders can, and have to, deal with it.
So i haven't read much beyond the OP, this also happens to be my 2nd post on TL. But I am an Eagle Scout of BSA Troop 200. Its a blanket opinion to just hate the BSA because the national Level leaders say things like this. Unless you have been in a Troop, you wouldn't know that the national level of BSA doesn't really do too much to affect the local troops. They are self run, and I can't speak for all troops. I know, but my troop had no problem with whatever religion, race, or sexual orientation you were. During my time in the scouts (this is 6 years ago, I'm 23 now) there were two gay scouts who were in the troop. Both were open, and we didn't give a shit.
I'm sure parents were being parents and probably not happy, but we didn't give a fuck. BSA is supposed to be BOY run troops, the Patrol leaders run the meetings, plan the campouts, organize trips. Its an organization designed for boys to become responsible and gain some independence. Obviously the adults are supposed to supervise when they have too.
I disagree with the BSA on the national level, but my troop and the Eagle award I earned have both helped shape who I am today and I am eternally grateful for that. I will always support the BSA on the local level, and their basic ideals.
ALso a scout's oath and law doesn't say anything about sexuality
Oath: On my honor I will do my best To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.
Law: A Scout is, Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, Reverent.
There is nothing about specific religions, NOR sexuality, Its supposed to be a neutral meeting ground. (above may be posted elsewhere)
On October 09 2012 00:47 neversummer wrote: First of all I don't think anyone is supporting the Boy Scouts of America.
Secondly I applaud them for maintaining their position in the midst of criticism from the community; I've never really cared for what is "politically" correct and quite frankly I don't think gay men should be prancing around with large groups of 8-10 year old boys.
User was temp banned for this post.
Temp ban for this post? I'm sorry but I just do not think it's fair? Sure, he didn't get the age group correctly but so now anyone who doesn't agree with having homosexuals in boy scouts should get a temp ban? The user stated their opinion and I'm sure that there are a lot of people who would agree, though obviously not openly on a forum like TL. I swear, people who have one thing to say against homosexuality get bullied 1000x more than homosexuals themselves.
Why even let this thread live if the only posts that are allowed are the homosexual praising ones and agreement with OP ones?
Issues with moderation go in Website Feedback not in the thread itself. You can also check the exact reason a user was banned on the Automated Ban List.
OT - As an Eagle Scout myself, I cannot say I am pleased with the stance the BSA has taken.
Reason: Homophobia. Use of prancing was what got you although your assumption that gay men are also child molesters didn't earn you any credit. Your mod history is long and your posting is awful, you're on the fast track out of here.
If there was a group of girlscouts, would parents be comfortable with a group of all adult males going for the trip? Just trying to firgure out a rational, any time personalopiniond get in the way of reality, we're at a loss.
So, trying to figure it out objectivley, maybe it's just the reality of men, gay or straight that scares people.
Not to get to gross here, but you have a dick that constantly builds stress to eventual eruption. This repeats almost every day and only builds up and needs to be released.
Are you gona leave it up, to the average day dolts to go about it right?
I'm just sprouting ideas, I was molested at a chucky cheese by two gay guys when I was 13 and I don't hold any grudges because I know the minute you generalize you should be brought out side and shot.
Good for BSA. They are an old organization with a reputation to uphold and allowing gays will blemish the brand's reputation. Acceptance [of gays] isn't universal in America. One day it will be and that will be the day when BSA changes their policy.
Also I think this thread should be closed. It's biased ban-bait.
On October 09 2012 05:56 Epishade wrote: This thread sure brings out the stupidity of some people, arguing that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles... We should just ban all catholic clergymen from becoming leaders as well. Lord knows they love molestin' kids.
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 even know how to respond to this. What a ridiculous comment. "Most rapes are committed by males" implies that we should not allow any male leaders in BSA because they are more likely to rape the kids than female leaders are...
No, you're taking what I said out of context. You're the second person to do this, so I want to clarify this point, but as Micronesia pointed out, the question of scout leaders is not the topic of this thread, so I'll put my response in spoilers.
The argument runs like this: Premise 1. Only someone who is a) attracted to young boys and b) a rapist, is a risk to rape young boys. Premise 2. The only sets of people who are attracted to young boys are ipso facto heterosexual female pedophiles and homosexual male pedophiles.
Conclusion 1: Only heterosexual female pedophilic rapists and homosexual male pedophilic rapists are a risk to rape young boys. (from premises 1 and 2)
Premise 3. Most rapists are male. Premise 4. In the absence of other evidence, we assume that heterosexuals and homosexuals, females and males, are all equally likely to be pedophiles.
Conclusion 2:ceteris paribis, a known homosexual male is more likely to be a risk to rape young boys than a heterosexual male, a heterosexual female, or a homosexual female. (conclusion 1, premises 3 and 4).
I omitted some steps that would make the argument more rigorous, but I trust that this is enough to convey the gist of it.
There are certainly several places where you might take issue with the argument, and certainly with the further conclusion that all known homosexual males should be denied positions that bring them into close personal contact with young boys, but the argument is not nonsensical unless you selectively quote only parts of the argument's base and pretend that they're all of it.
On October 09 2012 08:39 KookyMonster wrote: Leadership is not always a reflection of the grassroots level of the organization. The BSA have done some really wonderful things for society, so don't let this one incident ruin their reputation forever. I understand the anger felt (as I felt it too), but we have to keep it in mind that the issue is with the leaders at the national level, probably not your local boy scouts.
So if the grassroots is so against it, how can the leadership get away with such policy?
And that doesn't change the reality that it takes one person that doesn't overly like you to find out you are gay and/or atheist to get you kicked out of the boy scouts in the United States. If the scouts are so accepting, how can that be? And what is the grassroots concretely doing to change that?
The fact that not every member of the BSA is homophobic and anti-atheist doesn't mean that the organization as a whole isn't. It clearly is.
Most scout troops really don't interact that much at all with the national organization of the BSA. It would probably be ideal if the "Boy Scouts of America" were dissolved altogether and the actual boy scouts just continued on as unofficially affiliated organizations. I mean, what would troops miss out on? Jamborees? Big whoop.
On October 09 2012 13:44 Ravensong170 wrote: So i haven't read much beyond the OP, this also happens to be my 2nd post on TL. But I am an Eagle Scout of BSA Troop 200. Its a blanket opinion to just hate the BSA because the national Level leaders say things like this. Unless you have been in a Troop, you wouldn't know that the national level of BSA doesn't really do too much to affect the local troops. They are self run, and I can't speak for all troops. I know, but my troop had no problem with whatever religion, race, or sexual orientation you were. During my time in the scouts (this is 6 years ago, I'm 23 now) there were two gay scouts who were in the troop. Both were open, and we didn't give a shit.
I'm sure parents were being parents and probably not happy, but we didn't give a fuck. BSA is supposed to be BOY run troops, the Patrol leaders run the meetings, plan the campouts, organize trips. Its an organization designed for boys to become responsible and gain some independence. Obviously the adults are supposed to supervise when they have too.
I disagree with the BSA on the national level, but my troop and the Eagle award I earned have both helped shape who I am today and I am eternally grateful for that. I will always support the BSA on the local level, and their basic ideals.
ALso a scout's oath and law doesn't say anything about sexuality
Oath: On my honor I will do my best To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.
Law: A Scout is, Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, Reverent.
There is nothing about specific religions, NOR sexuality, Its supposed to be a neutral meeting ground. (above may be posted elsewhere)
How about atheism? The oath literally mentions a duty to god,
On October 09 2012 13:44 Ravensong170 wrote: So i haven't read much beyond the OP, this also happens to be my 2nd post on TL. But I am an Eagle Scout of BSA Troop 200. Its a blanket opinion to just hate the BSA because the national Level leaders say things like this. Unless you have been in a Troop, you wouldn't know that the national level of BSA doesn't really do too much to affect the local troops. They are self run, and I can't speak for all troops. I know, but my troop had no problem with whatever religion, race, or sexual orientation you were. During my time in the scouts (this is 6 years ago, I'm 23 now) there were two gay scouts who were in the troop. Both were open, and we didn't give a shit.
I'm sure parents were being parents and probably not happy, but we didn't give a fuck. BSA is supposed to be BOY run troops, the Patrol leaders run the meetings, plan the campouts, organize trips. Its an organization designed for boys to become responsible and gain some independence. Obviously the adults are supposed to supervise when they have too.
I disagree with the BSA on the national level, but my troop and the Eagle award I earned have both helped shape who I am today and I am eternally grateful for that. I will always support the BSA on the local level, and their basic ideals.
ALso a scout's oath and law doesn't say anything about sexuality
Oath: On my honor I will do my best To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.
Law: A Scout is, Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, Reverent.
There is nothing about specific religions, NOR sexuality, Its supposed to be a neutral meeting ground. (above may be posted elsewhere)
How about atheism? The oath literally mentions a duty to god,
Nah, his point still stands. I think he was assuming no atheist would join/stick with Scouts. Unless, of course, you're suggesting atheism be considered a religion, which I don't think you're trying to do. X-D Perhaps he should have instead said, "It's supposed to be a neutral meeting ground for God-believing young men."
On October 09 2012 19:57 iTzSnypah wrote: Good for BSA. They are an old organization with a reputation to uphold and allowing gays will blemish the brand's reputation. Acceptance [of gays] isn't universal in America. One day it will be and that will be the day when BSA changes their policy.
Blemish the brand's reputation in the eyes of bigots and bible-thumping fundamentalists. Good stuff.
On October 09 2012 10:35 GhostTK wrote: I'm against gays. I don't believe you are born with a sexual orientation. it is a learned behavior. Im not a homophobe by any means. I have a gay friend and several gay girl friends. I just don't think it is right. i think there is a reason there is man and woman. you don't see gays in animals. maybe occasional but if animals were gay they would all go extinct. theres a reason gays cant' reproduce. it wasn't intended. Therefore it is wrong.
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 09 2012 10:35 GhostTK wrote: I'm against gays. I don't believe you are born with a sexual orientation. it is a learned behavior. Im not a homophobe by any means. I have a gay friend and several gay girl friends. I just don't think it is right. i think there is a reason there is man and woman. you don't see gays in animals. maybe occasional but if animals were gay they would all go extinct. theres a reason gays cant' reproduce. it wasn't intended. Therefore it is wrong.
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.
Maybe what is more sad is your odd motivation to so staunchly defend the status of a word as opposed to the status of the rights of another person. I'm not sure what "normal" ever did for you, but its application with intent to make needless distinction is nothing more than subtle homophobia in this case. We use the words found in the dictionary we wrote; not the other way around.
On October 09 2012 19:57 iTzSnypah wrote: Good for BSA. They are an old organization with a reputation to uphold and allowing gays will blemish the brand's reputation. Acceptance [of gays] isn't universal in America. One day it will be and that will be the day when BSA changes their policy.
Blemish the brand's reputation in the eyes of bigots and bible-thumping fundamentalists. Good stuff.
Ok, this is getting silly. Your hatred(?) of all things religion are greatly diminishing any possibility for meaningful discussion on this topic. Lumping "bible-thumping fundamentalists" into the same category as bigots is a gross generalization and is just plain wrong, and only serves as an example of your own bigotry (in this case, against "bible-thumping fundamentalists).
Yes, there are a group(s) of people who are self proclaimed [insert religious sect here] who want to "burn gay people at the stake." But there are also a whole lot of us who don't agree with exclusion/segregation. So when you take jabs at religion with comments like this, its nothing short of insulting.
As an evangelical christian I can assure you that nobody, regardless of race, sexual orientation, criminal background, or anything else would be told they are not allowed to be a part of our church or church activities.
By the way, I know I pm'd you about this already, but you should really consider taking that "living christ" comment out of the OP. The discussion of the BSA excluding the gay kid is an interesting one, but sticking your thumb in the eye of religious people isn't necessary for that to take place.
Moving on....
The BSA is an organization, not a church. Just like PETA is an organization, not the democrat party. Do they have views that are overlapping? Yes, yes they do. Does PETA embody the democrat party and speak for it? No, no they don't. Likewise, BSA does not speak for any church, or its followers, but they do have overlapping views/beliefs/etc.
As an organization, they get to pick and choose what their model will be, the services they will provide, and the direction they will take. This includes the people they choose to play managerial roles in the organization. In BSA's case, they've chosen not to allow certain people to lead their organization. This isn't very different than PETA deciding they don't want Davy Crockett as their mascot. Both companies have every right to decide who they want to represent them and how they represent them. Another example is the CFO guy who got fired for giving the chik-fil-a drive through lady a bad time over their recent "scandal."
I don't agree with excluding gay kids from being a part of the BSA. I don't advocate driving a wedge between people because of differences in beliefs. The human race needs to come together, and isolating one another based on the labels we put on each other isn't the way.
Boy Scouts of America is a private organization. If they don't want to allow "faggots" (per the OP) or irreligious people, why should they have to? This is a textbook example of people advocating policies of "your rights end where my feelings begin".
On October 09 2012 10:35 GhostTK wrote: I'm against gays. I don't believe you are born with a sexual orientation. it is a learned behavior. Im not a homophobe by any means. I have a gay friend and several gay girl friends. I just don't think it is right. i think there is a reason there is man and woman. you don't see gays in animals. maybe occasional but if animals were gay they would all go extinct. theres a reason gays cant' reproduce. it wasn't intended. Therefore it is wrong.
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.
Maybe what is more sad is your odd motivation to so staunchly defend the status of a word as opposed to the status of the rights of another person. I'm not sure what "normal" ever did for you, but its application with intent to make needless distinction is nothing more than subtle homophobia in this case. We use the words found in the dictionary we wrote; not the other way around.
Tell me where i put into question the rights of another person? Fallacy at his best; really pathetic.
I have hyperthyroidism. Am i normal thyroidism wise? Nope I consider myself inferior to other people for that? Hell, no.
Oh, and "we" do not wrote the dicctionary. At least learn it properly.
On October 09 2012 13:44 Ravensong170 wrote: So i haven't read much beyond the OP, this also happens to be my 2nd post on TL. But I am an Eagle Scout of BSA Troop 200. Its a blanket opinion to just hate the BSA because the national Level leaders say things like this. Unless you have been in a Troop, you wouldn't know that the national level of BSA doesn't really do too much to affect the local troops. They are self run, and I can't speak for all troops. I know, but my troop had no problem with whatever religion, race, or sexual orientation you were. During my time in the scouts (this is 6 years ago, I'm 23 now) there were two gay scouts who were in the troop. Both were open, and we didn't give a shit.
I'm sure parents were being parents and probably not happy, but we didn't give a fuck. BSA is supposed to be BOY run troops, the Patrol leaders run the meetings, plan the campouts, organize trips. Its an organization designed for boys to become responsible and gain some independence. Obviously the adults are supposed to supervise when they have too.
I disagree with the BSA on the national level, but my troop and the Eagle award I earned have both helped shape who I am today and I am eternally grateful for that. I will always support the BSA on the local level, and their basic ideals.
ALso a scout's oath and law doesn't say anything about sexuality
Oath: On my honor I will do my best To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.
Law: A Scout is, Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, Reverent.
There is nothing about specific religions, NOR sexuality, Its supposed to be a neutral meeting ground. (above may be posted elsewhere)
But in the oath it says "to do my duty to God". So I'm assuming they're talking about the Christian God? Or do they also recognize the Islamic God? It just seems like if they're talking about the Christian God, then logically they would also support what God supports and attack what God says is wrong, and you know the whole thing about links between the bible and homosexuality being wrong...
I like that your troop didn't take the oath so specifically, but it seems like if some people took the oath seriously, doing "my duty to God" could be interpreted as supporting religious stances on various issues, from homosexuality to abortion (etc.). But it also says "my country", so if there is a conflict I guess they go with what they believe.
Still if you're in a place like south USA...there probably isn't much conflict (as far as I'm aware, I hope I'm not stereotyping, but I think all the southern states are the bible belt or something)
On October 10 2012 11:51 xAPOCALYPSEx wrote: Boy Scouts of America is a private organization. If they don't want to allow "faggots" (per the OP) or irreligious people, why should they have to? This is a textbook example of people advocating policies of "your rights end where my feelings begin".
I'm not sure but I think it might fly in the face of human rights, that no one can discriminate against you based on your orientation. But anyways I don't think anyone is forcing them to change, its just there's overwhelming public opposition to what they stand for, which is well within everyone's rights (you can criticize something, or protest it, but still respect the organization's right to choose what members to allow).
On October 09 2012 13:44 Ravensong170 wrote: So i haven't read much beyond the OP, this also happens to be my 2nd post on TL. But I am an Eagle Scout of BSA Troop 200. Its a blanket opinion to just hate the BSA because the national Level leaders say things like this. Unless you have been in a Troop, you wouldn't know that the national level of BSA doesn't really do too much to affect the local troops. They are self run, and I can't speak for all troops. I know, but my troop had no problem with whatever religion, race, or sexual orientation you were. During my time in the scouts (this is 6 years ago, I'm 23 now) there were two gay scouts who were in the troop. Both were open, and we didn't give a shit.
I'm sure parents were being parents and probably not happy, but we didn't give a fuck. BSA is supposed to be BOY run troops, the Patrol leaders run the meetings, plan the campouts, organize trips. Its an organization designed for boys to become responsible and gain some independence. Obviously the adults are supposed to supervise when they have too.
I disagree with the BSA on the national level, but my troop and the Eagle award I earned have both helped shape who I am today and I am eternally grateful for that. I will always support the BSA on the local level, and their basic ideals.
ALso a scout's oath and law doesn't say anything about sexuality
Oath: On my honor I will do my best To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.
Law: A Scout is, Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, Reverent.
There is nothing about specific religions, NOR sexuality, Its supposed to be a neutral meeting ground. (above may be posted elsewhere)
But in the oath it says "to do my duty to God". So I'm assuming they're talking about the Christian God? Or do they also recognize the Islamic God? It just seems like if they're talking about the Christian God, then logically they would also support what God supports and attack what God says is wrong, and you know the whole thing about links between the bible and homosexuality being wrong...
I like that your troop didn't take the oath so specifically, but it seems like if some people took the oath seriously, doing "my duty to God" could be interpreted as supporting religious stances on various issues, from homosexuality to abortion (etc.). But it also says "my country", so if there is a conflict I guess they go with what they believe.
Still if you're in a place like south USA...there probably isn't much conflict (as far as I'm aware, I hope I'm not stereotyping, but I think all the southern states are the bible belt or something)
Well Boy Scouts were started in Great Britain in the early 1900's (1907 I believe ? could be wrong) and it spread to many different countries. Each boy scout organization is going to have different cultural views on what the Boy Scouts should stand for.
I'm from north east, so not really a crazy christian area. and our scoutmaster only told us that members of his troop should believe in something. Whether that's Zeus, God, the great pumpkin etc. Atheism wasn't something that our scoutmaster was cool with, BUT our troop didn't make any open statements about atheists (there was a few atheist (or as atheist as a 11 year can be).
The BSA national charter may say something about follow christian values, but on the local level that isn't true. It's supposed to be, a much more accepting place.
In the oath and law I guess yea you could say that may be a conflict, but some people interpret their religion differently. Like for instance, I do not follow and listen to pretty much anything said in the old testament. Its a little be ridiculous and absurd. New Testament is actually (for the most part) generally good advice. Looking at the gospels that focus on what Jesus did, you'll notice he NEVER condemns homosexuality, pre-marital sex, or other religions. He doesn't create these crazy rules for living (like after having sex the man and woman must bathe for some absurd amount of time or something in the old testament, and also cannot see each other for a few days or something like that.) Jesus was a little more like a philosopher rather than the progenitor of a religion. (look only at Jesus, not at the rest of bible, before I get flamed.)
In the end it really comes down to interpretation both on the part of the BSA as well as the local troops.
On October 09 2012 10:35 GhostTK wrote: I'm against gays. I don't believe you are born with a sexual orientation. it is a learned behavior. Im not a homophobe by any means. I have a gay friend and several gay girl friends. I just don't think it is right. i think there is a reason there is man and woman. you don't see gays in animals. maybe occasional but if animals were gay they would all go extinct. theres a reason gays cant' reproduce. it wasn't intended. Therefore it is wrong.
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 ¬¬
Well no shit you could say gay people are "abnormal" just by the nature of them being minorities. Just like being left handed makes you a minority and not "normal". But it doesn't change the fact that you should be treated equally.
The homophobes are coming out of the woodshed on this one. Boy am I tired of this discussion. As long as Catholic churches and the LDS church threaten to pull funding, the BSA will NEVER allow homosexuals. This is a lost cause, and, regrettably, as a former Eagle Scout (maybe not formerly, I guess you're actually one for life [get it? Life? The rank before... the.. Eagle... bah.]), I promise that these excluded individuals aren't missing out on shit!
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.
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 13:02 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.
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.
nobody has a problem forcing their beliefs on others when they feel their beliefs are justified. thats the whole problem.
On October 10 2012 13:02 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.
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.
nobody has a problem forcing their beliefs on others when they feel their beliefs are justified. thats the whole problem.
Okay, I doth hear thee, but what is the limit of the level of intolerance we are supposed to tolerate?
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.
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.
nobody has a problem forcing their beliefs on others when they feel their beliefs are justified. thats the whole problem.
Okay, I doth hear thee, but what is the limit of the level of intolerance we are supposed to tolerate?
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 09 2012 00:47 neversummer wrote: quite frankly I don't think gay men should be prancing around with large groups of 8-10 year old boys.
Wow. I didn't think people would be this dedicated to displaying their ignorance on a forum like TL. Pretty interesting actually!
You do realise that pedophilia and homosexuality has nothing whatsoever to do with each other, right?
Does this also mean that the heterosexual man/woman can't take care of kids of the opposite sex?
As for the topic, it really blows my mind that there are some parts of the western world where this ridiculous attitude to your fellow man still exists. Even more so when it comes to a group of such official status.
Agreed, it's the worst part of democracy too. The thought that people like this vote makes me quite pessimistic for the human race.
Yes there was no logic in that statement but does everyone seriously lose faith in humanity that easily?
Why can't we just accept the fact that we live in a divided world... all this negativity towards the human race is complete bullshit
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.
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.
nobody has a problem forcing their beliefs on others when they feel their beliefs are justified. thats the whole problem.
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 13:02 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.
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.
nobody has a problem forcing their beliefs on others when they feel their beliefs are justified. thats the whole problem.
Okay, I doth hear thee, but what is the limit of the level of intolerance we are supposed to tolerate?
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!
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 13:02 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.
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.
nobody has a problem forcing their beliefs on others when they feel their beliefs are justified. thats the whole problem.
Okay, I doth hear thee, but what is the limit of the level of intolerance we are supposed to tolerate?
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!
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?
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!
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.
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.
nobody has a problem forcing their beliefs on others when they feel their beliefs are justified. thats the whole problem.
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 13:02 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.
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.
nobody has a problem forcing their beliefs on others when they feel their beliefs are justified. thats the whole problem.
Okay, I doth hear thee, but what is the limit of the level of intolerance we are supposed to tolerate?
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!
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?
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!
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 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.
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.
nobody has a problem forcing their beliefs on others when they feel their beliefs are justified. thats the whole problem.
Okay, I doth hear thee, but what is the limit of the level of intolerance we are supposed to tolerate?
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!
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?
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!
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.
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 13:18 Djzapz wrote: [quote] 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.
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.
nobody has a problem forcing their beliefs on others when they feel their beliefs are justified. thats the whole problem.
Okay, I doth hear thee, but what is the limit of the level of intolerance we are supposed to tolerate?
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!
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?
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!
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.
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
A "Yes" would have worked too
No nitpicking, I just disagree slightly and I'll leave it at that
On October 10 2012 13:20 dAPhREAk wrote: [quote] i have a problem with the trend of people/government deciding how other people should think, or what they should believe.
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.
nobody has a problem forcing their beliefs on others when they feel their beliefs are justified. thats the whole problem.
Okay, I doth hear thee, but what is the limit of the level of intolerance we are supposed to tolerate?
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!
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?
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!
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.
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
A "Yes" would have worked too
No nitpicking, I just disagree slightly and I'll leave it at that
;-)
you still have the most awesome name on tl.net. not sure how many times i told you that already.
On October 10 2012 13:33 Djzapz wrote: [quote] 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.
nobody has a problem forcing their beliefs on others when they feel their beliefs are justified. thats the whole problem.
Okay, I doth hear thee, but what is the limit of the level of intolerance we are supposed to tolerate?
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!
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?
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!
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.
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
A "Yes" would have worked too
No nitpicking, I just disagree slightly and I'll leave it at that
;-)
you still have the most awesome name on tl.net. not sure how many times i told you that already.
Mostly ironic now because I haven't had one in years (used to drink 3+ daily). Just coffee-coffee-coffee now
On October 09 2012 19:38 VegetarianPeaceLove wrote: If there was a group of girlscouts, would parents be comfortable with a group of all adult males going for the trip? Just trying to firgure out a rational, any time personalopiniond get in the way of reality, we're at a loss.
So, trying to figure it out objectivley, maybe it's just the reality of men, gay or straight that scares people.
Not to get to gross here, but you have a dick that constantly builds stress to eventual eruption. This repeats almost every day and only builds up and needs to be released.
Are you gona leave it up, to the average day dolts to go about it right?
I'm just sprouting ideas, I was molested at a chucky cheese by two gay guys when I was 13 and I don't hold any grudges because I know the minute you generalize you should be brought out side and shot.
You don't hold any grudges against two guys that molested you, wtf?
On October 09 2012 19:38 VegetarianPeaceLove wrote: If there was a group of girlscouts, would parents be comfortable with a group of all adult males going for the trip? Just trying to firgure out a rational, any time personalopiniond get in the way of reality, we're at a loss.
So, trying to figure it out objectivley, maybe it's just the reality of men, gay or straight that scares people.
Not to get to gross here, but you have a dick that constantly builds stress to eventual eruption. This repeats almost every day and only builds up and needs to be released.
Are you gona leave it up, to the average day dolts to go about it right?
I'm just sprouting ideas, I was molested at a chucky cheese by two gay guys when I was 13 and I don't hold any grudges because I know the minute you generalize you should be brought out side and shot.
You don't hold any grudges against two guys that molested you, wtf?
I think he meant in general, as in, he doesn't hold grudges against gays.
that guy's entire post history is ridiculous troll posts. it's why he's nuked,
Why is there such a big fuss about this? If they don't want any homosexuals in BSoA then they are free to do so. If you force them to accept homosexuals then that will be forced upon them and they will always be shut out cold from the groups. I think homosexuals should go to places where they feel at home and where they are welcomed, why force themselves into a group of people that will make fun of them and don't want them in the first place?
Conclusion ; I think BSA should be able to have the rules they want, albeit offending.
On October 10 2012 19:32 OrangeMarmalade wrote: Why is there such a big fuss about this? If they don't want any homosexuals in BSoA then they are free to do so. If you force them to accept homosexuals then that will be forced upon them and they will always be shut out cold from the groups. I think homosexuals should go to places where they feel at home and where they are welcomed, why force themselves into a group of people that will make fun of them and don't want them in the first place?
Conclusion ; I think BSA should be able to have the rules they want, albeit offending.
It's fine if they want to impose their own rules as long as they don't get government funding.
Publicly funded organisations shouldn't be allowed to perpetuate hateful bigotry.
favorite posts in this thread "I think being gay's fine, I have gays that are fine but I think it's just unnatural and it shouldn't happen!" :D
GhostTK
I'm against gays. I don't believe you are born with a sexual orientation. it is a learned behavior. Im not a homophobe by any means. I have a gay friend and several gay girl friends. I just don't think it is right. i think there is a reason there is man and woman. you don't see gays in animals. maybe occasional but if animals were gay they would all go extinct. theres a reason gays cant' reproduce. it wasn't intended. Therefore it is wrong.
Belha
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 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.)
Wow what an idea. You act like pedophiles only sexually assault boys or girls based on their sexual orientation.
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.
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.
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.
nobody has a problem forcing their beliefs on others when they feel their beliefs are justified. thats the whole problem.
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.
i dont know what you are talking about anymore.
I don't know how to re-word it for you. It was pretty simple already.
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.
No it isn't okay for them to stick to their views, because they are receiving government funding and benefits.
actually, it is okay for them to stick to their views. you can petition the gov't to remove their public funding and benefits. just remember, this is the same argument pro-life people make for shutting down abortion clinics. you can dictate how the gov't spends your taxpayer dollars, you cannot dictate what other people believe.
What government funding does the BSA receive? Indirectly they do through a few benefits... but I'm not aware of money being given to the BSA from federal taxpayers.
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.
No it isn't okay for them to stick to their views, because they are receiving government funding and benefits.
actually, it is okay for them to stick to their views. you can petition the gov't to remove their public funding and benefits. just remember, this is the same argument pro-life people make for shutting down abortion clinics. you can dictate how the gov't spends your taxpayer dollars, you cannot dictate what other people believe.
Except the burden of proof is on the BSA. They're saying "we ban gays because we're a Christian organization." They set themselves up as a religious organization.
The first amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Now, the government really isn't allowed to get involved AT ALL. They certainly aren't allowed to censor them but, because they are a religious organization, they aren't allowed to support them either.
Abortion clinics claim no religious affiliation so the first amendment really has nothing to do with whether or not they get funding.
It's up to the BSA to demonstrate why they should get funding at all. It's not on our backs to demonstrate why they shouldn't get it.
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.
No it isn't okay for them to stick to their views, because they are receiving government funding and benefits.
actually, it is okay for them to stick to their views. you can petition the gov't to remove their public funding and benefits. just remember, this is the same argument pro-life people make for shutting down abortion clinics. you can dictate how the gov't spends your taxpayer dollars, you cannot dictate what other people believe.
Except the burden of proof is on the BSA. They're saying "we ban gays because we're a Christian organization." They set themselves up as a religious organization.
The first amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Now, the government really isn't allowed to get involved AT ALL. They certainly aren't allowed to censor them but, because they are a religious organization, they aren't allowed to support them either.
Abortion clinics claim no religious affiliation so the first amendment really has nothing to do with whether or not they get funding.
It's up to the BSA to demonstrate why they should get funding at all. It's not on our backs to demonstrate why they shouldn't get it.
what burden of proof are you referring to? and i wasnt referring to the first amendment with respect to abortion clinics.
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.
No it isn't okay for them to stick to their views, because they are receiving government funding and benefits.
actually, it is okay for them to stick to their views. you can petition the gov't to remove their public funding and benefits. just remember, this is the same argument pro-life people make for shutting down abortion clinics. you can dictate how the gov't spends your taxpayer dollars, you cannot dictate what other people believe.
Except the burden of proof is on the BSA. They're saying "we ban gays because we're a Christian organization." They set themselves up as a religious organization.
The first amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Now, the government really isn't allowed to get involved AT ALL. They certainly aren't allowed to censor them but, because they are a religious organization, they aren't allowed to support them either.
Abortion clinics claim no religious affiliation so the first amendment really has nothing to do with whether or not they get funding.
It's up to the BSA to demonstrate why they should get funding at all. It's not on our backs to demonstrate why they shouldn't get it.
what burden of proof are you referring to?
The burden of proof as to whether or not they should get funding. You implied in your post that the onus is on dissenters to petition the government. I'm arguing the onus is on the BSA to prove they deserve funding in the first place. The default is that the BSA gets no funding.
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.
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.
No it isn't okay for them to stick to their views, because they are receiving government funding and benefits.
actually, it is okay for them to stick to their views. you can petition the gov't to remove their public funding and benefits. just remember, this is the same argument pro-life people make for shutting down abortion clinics. you can dictate how the gov't spends your taxpayer dollars, you cannot dictate what other people believe.
Except the burden of proof is on the BSA. They're saying "we ban gays because we're a Christian organization." They set themselves up as a religious organization.
The first amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Now, the government really isn't allowed to get involved AT ALL. They certainly aren't allowed to censor them but, because they are a religious organization, they aren't allowed to support them either.
Abortion clinics claim no religious affiliation so the first amendment really has nothing to do with whether or not they get funding.
It's up to the BSA to demonstrate why they should get funding at all. It's not on our backs to demonstrate why they shouldn't get it.
what burden of proof are you referring to?
The burden of proof as to whether or not they should get funding. You implied in your post that the onus is on dissenters to petition the government. I'm arguing the onus is on the BSA to prove they deserve funding in the first place. The default is that the BSA gets no funding.
How about the burden of proof that they do get public funding in the first place. A lot of people are bringing this up as if it's a well-known fact that everyone knows, in spite of the fact that no one has cited any proof of this—and in fact, I cited Wikipedia earlier, which states that the national council of the BSA is not publically funded. Some people have brought up other benefits such as usage of government-owned property, but that's not quite the same thing, as it's not coming out of anyone's pocket.
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.)
Wow what an idea. You act like pedophiles only sexually assault boys or girls based on their sexual orientation.
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.
No it isn't okay for them to stick to their views, because they are receiving government funding and benefits.
actually, it is okay for them to stick to their views. you can petition the gov't to remove their public funding and benefits. just remember, this is the same argument pro-life people make for shutting down abortion clinics. you can dictate how the gov't spends your taxpayer dollars, you cannot dictate what other people believe.
Except the burden of proof is on the BSA. They're saying "we ban gays because we're a Christian organization." They set themselves up as a religious organization.
The first amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Now, the government really isn't allowed to get involved AT ALL. They certainly aren't allowed to censor them but, because they are a religious organization, they aren't allowed to support them either.
Abortion clinics claim no religious affiliation so the first amendment really has nothing to do with whether or not they get funding.
It's up to the BSA to demonstrate why they should get funding at all. It's not on our backs to demonstrate why they shouldn't get it.
what burden of proof are you referring to?
The burden of proof as to whether or not they should get funding. You implied in your post that the onus is on dissenters to petition the government. I'm arguing the onus is on the BSA to prove they deserve funding in the first place. The default is that the BSA gets no funding.
you have many assumptions that i do not know whether they are true, and dont feel like researching because they are besides the point i was trying to make anyways. i am not sure the BSA is considered a religion for 1st amendment purposes, and im not sure if that would even block their funding in the first place (the 1st amendment's actual language is not applied so religiously--pun intended). however, assuming the BSA was a religious organization and assuming that it was receiving federal funding, which micronesia has questioned and im not sure about, then its safe to assume that they have already met this mythical "burden of proof" that you are referring to but i have never heard of.
if anyone cares, i do not believe that allowing gay people into the boy scouts is wrong because it would open doors for pedophiles.
But i do believe that allowing homosexuals into the boy scouts clearly conflicts with one of the main puposes of the organization. There are no girls allowed, as it would raise a lot of social conflicts, and i'm sure most people understand this. Allowing homosexual people would be similar to allowing girls into the organization. It would lead to a lot of discomfort and distrust, not only for the kids, but also their parents. To give a simple example, there would most probably be no harmless showering together anymore. Furthermore, the boy scouts is after all a christian organization. And as long as they bring no actual harm to other people, they can believe whatever they want to. A lot of people are actually trusting this very organization to represent at least some christian values. And since there is no actual harm done to other people, i find the argument of discrimination ridiculous. If you think that everyone has the right to do everything they want, go to an islamic ruled country and tell them you do not believe in their god. Chances are, if you pick the right one you will be executed. Why pick on (and ruin, as stated above) a friendly organization, when there is much more cruelty going on around the world? And if you believe the more freedom the better, go to a warzone, and you will soon learn that true freedom comes at its price, whereas restrictions also guarantee safety, as i already mentioned above. Lastly, for the funding that the organization recieves: The government funds things that it believes are of common interest. You might not like some restrictions, but a lot of people in the US actually do, and there are enough of them to make a valid point in funding the organization. In my country, the state does fund a ton of things i heavily dislike, or which i believe are immoral or unfair. But when it serves a lot of people i have still respect for it.
im not sure what BSA you were a part of that all the boys showered together, but that certainly didn't happen in our troop. and i would not have felt any discomfort from having a homosexual scout sleeping in a tent with me (or a girl for that matter, rawwwr). regardless, dont you think those are things that should be decided on the local level (where they actually have context and facts) rather than the national level (where they make generalizations that are based on bullshit)?
On October 11 2012 01:45 Cirqueenflex wrote: if anyone cares, i do not believe that allowing gay people into the boy scouts is wrong because it would open doors for pedophiles.
But i do believe that allowing homosexuals into the boy scouts clearly conflicts with one of the main puposes of the organization. There are no girls allowed, as it would raise a lot of social conflicts, and i'm sure most people understand this.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think homosexual males are still males. I didn't know that your sexual orientation changed your sex...
On October 11 2012 01:45 Cirqueenflex wrote:To give a simple example, there would most probably be no harmless showering together anymore.
I've never heard of boy scout troops showering together...
On October 11 2012 00:43 micronesia wrote: What government funding does the BSA receive? Indirectly they do through a few benefits... but I'm not aware of money being given to the BSA from federal taxpayers.
Two well-known Chicago religious leaders have asked a federal appellate court in Chicago to uphold the basic constitutional principle of government neutrality between religious groups and secular groups and bar the Pentagon from the extraordinary spending of millions of dollars to support future Boy Scout Jamborees (the only youth organization event so funded by the Pentagon). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is hearing arguments on Thursday April 6 in Winkler v. Rumsfeld, a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois.
Last year a federal district court judge in Chicago found that the Pentagon's special expenditure of more than $7 million for each Jamboree violated the principle of government neutrality in religion and ordered the funding stopped. The appellate court argument is the most recent action in the case brought by the ACLU of Illinois on behalf of religious and community leaders from Chicago alarmed at the favored treatment afforded by the Pentagon to the Boy Scouts of America, despite the BSA's religious requirements for participation.
“Government neutrality in religious activities is a fundamental constitutional value embraced by most Americans," said lead plaintiff Eugene Winkler, former pastor at the First United Methodist Church in Chicago. "Government must be neutral because we are a nation of many religious views - as well as those who do not practice a religion. The expenditure of more than $29 million by the Pentagon for an organization that requires young people to believe in God - and the simultaneous exclusion of secular organizations from this benefit -- undermines that principle of neutrality. We trust the appeals court will uphold the decision below.”
Two lead plaintiffs in the case filed in 1999, Winkler and Rabbi Gary Gerson, said they hoped the appeals court would uphold the judge's order that helps maintain the critical constitutional principle of government neutrality towards religion. The Boy Scouts of America, a private organization, requires youth who participate in their activities to believe in God. Indeed, the BSA expels youth who do not. Yet Congress and the Pentagon provide the Boy Scouts with a unique and lucrative benefit, funding of more than $29 million over the past two decades. No other youth organization competes for this generous federal benefit.
Pentagon support for the quadrennial Jamboree extends far beyond providing a venue for the event. Indeed, evidence in the case demonstrated that the Pentagon's expenditure on behalf of the Jamboree serves no military purpose; rather, the funding is simply expended to support the BSA's efforts to provide a quality camping experience for their members. As an example, the Pentagon once spent a half million dollars for temporary workers to erect and break down tents. Other goods purchased by the Pentagon for the participants at the Jamboree include pediatric medical supplies, commercial vehicles and cookie dough. The Pentagon also spent $65,000 for commemorative mementos to mark the Jamboree.
According to the religious leaders who brought the case, the extraordinary aid provided to the Jamboree is particularly alarming because of the BSA's exclusions of non-believers. Before a young man can join the Scouts, tie a knot or pitch a tent, they are required to swear an oath of "duty to God." If the youth refuses to sign the oath, they are not admitted into the Scouts. Moreover, the BSA describes itself as a religious group, is effectively controlled by religious organizations, has religious requirements for youth to advance in the ranks and engages in a host of other religious practices. The evidence in the case also demonstrated that the Jamboree is explicitly religious. Troop leaders, for example, are issued a guidebook by the Boy Scouts of America indicating that a prayer book is "required personal camping equipment" for all youth attendees. The BSA also issues a "Duty to God" booklet for each participant that recommends prayers for each day of the Jamboree.
Reviewing these facts in the district court, Judge Blanche Manning of Chicago found the statute that provides special treatment and special funding for the Boy Scouts Jamboree is not neutral with regards to religion. The Judge's decision reasoned that the government aid was "not offered to a broad range of groups; rather, it is specifically targeted toward the Boy Scouts, which… is a religious organization from which agnostics and atheists are excluded."
"The BSA - by its own admission - is a religious organization," added Winkler. "The federal government' simply cannot give special treatment to a private group that excludes young men who do not profess a particular religious faith."
The lawsuit was filed in 1999. At earlier stages of the case, the Chicago Public Schools and the Pentagon entered into settlements agreeing to stop their direct sponsorship of Boy Scout troops. Boy Scouts can still meet on military bases and military personnel can still participate in Scout activities on their own time.
Charles Peters, David Scott, Kevin F. Feeney and David Sattelberger of the Schiff Hardin law firm are co-counsel along with ACLU of Illinois attorneys Adam Schwartz and Harvey Grossman in representing Reverend Winkler and Rabbi Gerson and the other plaintiffs.
On October 11 2012 00:43 micronesia wrote: What government funding does the BSA receive? Indirectly they do through a few benefits... but I'm not aware of money being given to the BSA from federal taxpayers.
Two well-known Chicago religious leaders have asked a federal appellate court in Chicago to uphold the basic constitutional principle of government neutrality between religious groups and secular groups and bar the Pentagon from the extraordinary spending of millions of dollars to support future Boy Scout Jamborees (the only youth organization event so funded by the Pentagon). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is hearing arguments on Thursday April 6 in Winkler v. Rumsfeld, a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois.
Last year a federal district court judge in Chicago found that the Pentagon's special expenditure of more than $7 million for each Jamboree violated the principle of government neutrality in religion and ordered the funding stopped. The appellate court argument is the most recent action in the case brought by the ACLU of Illinois on behalf of religious and community leaders from Chicago alarmed at the favored treatment afforded by the Pentagon to the Boy Scouts of America, despite the BSA's religious requirements for participation.
“Government neutrality in religious activities is a fundamental constitutional value embraced by most Americans," said lead plaintiff Eugene Winkler, former pastor at the First United Methodist Church in Chicago. "Government must be neutral because we are a nation of many religious views - as well as those who do not practice a religion. The expenditure of more than $29 million by the Pentagon for an organization that requires young people to believe in God - and the simultaneous exclusion of secular organizations from this benefit -- undermines that principle of neutrality. We trust the appeals court will uphold the decision below.”
Two lead plaintiffs in the case filed in 1999, Winkler and Rabbi Gary Gerson, said they hoped the appeals court would uphold the judge's order that helps maintain the critical constitutional principle of government neutrality towards religion. The Boy Scouts of America, a private organization, requires youth who participate in their activities to believe in God. Indeed, the BSA expels youth who do not. Yet Congress and the Pentagon provide the Boy Scouts with a unique and lucrative benefit, funding of more than $29 million over the past two decades. No other youth organization competes for this generous federal benefit.
Pentagon support for the quadrennial Jamboree extends far beyond providing a venue for the event. Indeed, evidence in the case demonstrated that the Pentagon's expenditure on behalf of the Jamboree serves no military purpose; rather, the funding is simply expended to support the BSA's efforts to provide a quality camping experience for their members. As an example, the Pentagon once spent a half million dollars for temporary workers to erect and break down tents. Other goods purchased by the Pentagon for the participants at the Jamboree include pediatric medical supplies, commercial vehicles and cookie dough. The Pentagon also spent $65,000 for commemorative mementos to mark the Jamboree.
According to the religious leaders who brought the case, the extraordinary aid provided to the Jamboree is particularly alarming because of the BSA's exclusions of non-believers. Before a young man can join the Scouts, tie a knot or pitch a tent, they are required to swear an oath of "duty to God." If the youth refuses to sign the oath, they are not admitted into the Scouts. Moreover, the BSA describes itself as a religious group, is effectively controlled by religious organizations, has religious requirements for youth to advance in the ranks and engages in a host of other religious practices. The evidence in the case also demonstrated that the Jamboree is explicitly religious. Troop leaders, for example, are issued a guidebook by the Boy Scouts of America indicating that a prayer book is "required personal camping equipment" for all youth attendees. The BSA also issues a "Duty to God" booklet for each participant that recommends prayers for each day of the Jamboree.
Reviewing these facts in the district court, Judge Blanche Manning of Chicago found the statute that provides special treatment and special funding for the Boy Scouts Jamboree is not neutral with regards to religion. The Judge's decision reasoned that the government aid was "not offered to a broad range of groups; rather, it is specifically targeted toward the Boy Scouts, which… is a religious organization from which agnostics and atheists are excluded."
"The BSA - by its own admission - is a religious organization," added Winkler. "The federal government' simply cannot give special treatment to a private group that excludes young men who do not profess a particular religious faith."
The lawsuit was filed in 1999. At earlier stages of the case, the Chicago Public Schools and the Pentagon entered into settlements agreeing to stop their direct sponsorship of Boy Scout troops. Boy Scouts can still meet on military bases and military personnel can still participate in Scout activities on their own time.
Charles Peters, David Scott, Kevin F. Feeney and David Sattelberger of the Schiff Hardin law firm are co-counsel along with ACLU of Illinois attorneys Adam Schwartz and Harvey Grossman in representing Reverend Winkler and Rabbi Gerson and the other plaintiffs.
as much as i disagree with the boyscouts here, it really is a pain to read OP's where the personal bias of the OP is so blatantly clear. the report of the news should be unbiased, and then when you have an opinion on the topic you can state that in a separate paragraph. putting opinion into the news part of the OP just makes it intentionally inflammatory no matter what side you're choosing
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.
Is Jeff Sandusky a homosexual? Because I believe he has a loving wife and multiple children. Openly gay men are less likely to abuse boys than straight (by the boyscouts definition) men, you heard it here. I'd love to have a study to throw at you, oh well. Go watch the South Park episode on it buddy.
On October 11 2012 01:45 Cirqueenflex wrote: if anyone cares, i do not believe that allowing gay people into the boy scouts is wrong because it would open doors for pedophiles.
But i do believe that allowing homosexuals into the boy scouts clearly conflicts with one of the main puposes of the organization. There are no girls allowed, as it would raise a lot of social conflicts, and i'm sure most people understand this. Allowing homosexual people would be similar to allowing girls into the organization. It would lead to a lot of discomfort and distrust, not only for the kids, but also their parents. To give a simple example, there would most probably be no harmless showering together anymore. Furthermore, the boy scouts is after all a christian organization. And as long as they bring no actual harm to other people, they can believe whatever they want to. A lot of people are actually trusting this very organization to represent at least some christian values. And since there is no actual harm done to other people, i find the argument of discrimination ridiculous. If you think that everyone has the right to do everything they want, go to an islamic ruled country and tell them you do not believe in their god. Chances are, if you pick the right one you will be executed. Why pick on (and ruin, as stated above) a friendly organization, when there is much more cruelty going on around the world? And if you believe the more freedom the better, go to a warzone, and you will soon learn that true freedom comes at its price, whereas restrictions also guarantee safety, as i already mentioned above. Lastly, for the funding that the organization recieves: The government funds things that it believes are of common interest. You might not like some restrictions, but a lot of people in the US actually do, and there are enough of them to make a valid point in funding the organization. In my country, the state does fund a ton of things i heavily dislike, or which i believe are immoral or unfair. But when it serves a lot of people i have still respect for it.
Wait so why do we allow the gay kids to shower with the straight kids in school? Wouldn't that create an uncomfortable situation? I am surprised we don't here 1000s of complaints from parents.
On October 11 2012 01:45 Cirqueenflex wrote: There are no girls allowed, as it would raise a lot of social conflicts, and i'm sure most people understand this.
What's funny is that boys are allowed into the Girl Scouts, but they are a much more tolerant organization in general, rather than one based on the notion of King and Country.
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.
Is Jeff Sandusky a homosexual? Because I believe he has a loving wife and multiple children. Openly gay men are less likely to abuse boys than straight (by the boyscouts definition) men, you heard it here. I'd love to have a study to throw at you, oh well. Go watch the South Park episode on it buddy.
You cite one example of a closet gay and pedophile and use that to support your argument that openly gay men are less likely to abuse boys than straight? That's funny, because last time I checked a man who was straight doesn't touch boys.
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.)
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.)
where are you reading that it was thrown out? I believe this is the same case?
its funny that this is discussed here, in a gamers forum with 99% people who dont have kids or are responsible for kids. in REALITY men have many problems when they are close (at the same place) to young kids of the sex they prefer (hetero men with girls, homo men with boys), believe it or not. example: my girlfriend is a teacher for 3-4 graders (about 10 years old) when they went swimming in sport the last time there was a father that wanted to pickup his daugther. so he went into the changing room (everyone changed in 1 big room, 1 for girls, 1 for boys) to tell her she has to hurry. my gf said to him he has to wait outside,but after that he came back in 2 times again. the policy of the school is that the parents are of course not allowed to get into the dressing room. it would not have been a problem if the mother had picked her up. end of story is, on the next parents day the father got critisized in front of the other parents for that, and i am sure some of them are suspicious now if he had some "problematic" motivation. i am not defending or attacking any side, i am just saying thats how the world works. like it or not. you cant change it. if theres only 1 case of abuse conducted by a homosexual, the shitstorm would last for 10 years. you cant change society, you have to wait until it has changed. and in some areas it perhaps wont change forever.
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.
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..
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.
If we're assuming that they're not informing the BSA that they're a paedophile while applying for the job then why would we assume they're going to be honest about the gender that they're attracted to. It seems a strange way of protecting children from paedophiles. If you open with "are you a man who is attracted to other males?" and assume that they'll answer truthfully if they're trying to sneak in and molest the children then can't you just ask "are those males under the age of consent?" and assume they'll answer that truthfully too. Molesters screened out, npnp. If you assume that someone trying to molest the children would know better than to openly admit it if asked then they'd probably not openly admit anything else that'd disqualify them, like homosexuality in this case. If they openly like to stick their dick in adult men consensually and you know this then you can be pretty sure they'll be okay around your children because they're not their type. The ban protects nobody and simply reinforces the hateful stereotype that homosexual men are likely to molest children.
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.
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 to suit your stance? 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. Which is my entire point, I don't care if the government thinks it's ok for whatever reasons.
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."
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....
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: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndoP1YW72Zk 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.
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 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 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 00:47 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 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 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 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 04:09 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 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....
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 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 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 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 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 05:57 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.
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.
Agreed, a private can do whatever they privately want. The issue is with regards to any tax payer spending or state spending.
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.
Is Jeff Sandusky a homosexual? Because I believe he has a loving wife and multiple children. Openly gay men are less likely to abuse boys than straight (by the boyscouts definition) men, you heard it here. I'd love to have a study to throw at you, oh well. Go watch the South Park episode on it buddy.
You cite one example of a closet gay and pedophile and use that to support your argument that openly gay men are less likely to abuse boys than straight? That's funny, because last time I checked a man who was straight doesn't touch boys.
Gay men don't touch boys either, unless they are secretly pedophiles. Straight men don't touch boys either, unless they are secretly pedophiles. See the common denominator here, and why it is retarded to discriminate based on the "likelyhood" of being a pedophile. Following your logic they should ban men from leading boyscouts and personally, I don't think that would be such a bad idea. Why do they allow men to lead boyscouts when men are far more likely to abuse the boys involved?
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.
I do not understand why we let such horrible logic slip by. Being Christian is a choice. Being gay is not a choice. Your choices can be criticized and ridiculed. Things that are not your choice cannot.
If you choose to believe that 2+2 = 6 then I can call you stupid and laugh at you. I cannot laugh at someone for being born black or blonde.
On October 11 2012 09:49 kmillz wrote: Seems like being religious is more likely to draw haters than being gay these days. Lucky me, I'm neither.
That may be so but the reasons people "hate" said people have nothing in common. Difference being some religious people are openly bigoted towards gays. It's like comparing hating racists and hating black people.
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future. Maybe also add "For the Living Christ" as an addendum.
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
only in MERICA...
In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future. Maybe also add "For the Living Christ" as an addendum.
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
only in MERICA...
In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future. Maybe also add "For the Living Christ" as an addendum.
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
only in MERICA...
In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future. Maybe also add "For the Living Christ" as an addendum.
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
173.231.136.216 United States New York New York City Voxel Dot Net Inc.
How you determine what country this website is from, I'm not sure.
Making fun of people because they hold what you think to be dumb ideas is very questionable though. You aren't exactly making the world a better place if you know what I mean.
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.
I do not understand why we let such horrible logic slip by. Being Christian is a choice. Being gay is not a choice. Your choices can be criticized and ridiculed. Things that are not your choice cannot.
If you choose to believe that 2+2 = 6 then I can call you stupid and laugh at you. I cannot laugh at someone for being born black or blonde.
Wait, I have a question. Can you link me to a good study where it deems homosexuality isn't a choice? I've read many different studies which contradict each other. Yes, Christianity, as well as any religion is a choice. However, in my mind, I believe your gender orientation is also a choice. There isn't a gene that makes you like one sex over the other from my understanding.
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future. Maybe also add "For the Living Christ" as an addendum.
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
only in MERICA...
In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins
Need we say more? they are super stupid and i really dont see a change coming for them =)
I mean.look at this
hahahaha
I know that I'm generalizing (which is a little unfair to the hordes of decent and thoughtful people who take issue with the BSA's stance against homosexuality), but this (and the OP) represents exactly the sort of smug, vicious elitism I associate with the most vocal opponents of the scouts.
On October 10 2012 13:18 Djzapz wrote: [quote] 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.
I do not understand why we let such horrible logic slip by. Being Christian is a choice. Being gay is not a choice. Your choices can be criticized and ridiculed. Things that are not your choice cannot.
If you choose to believe that 2+2 = 6 then I can call you stupid and laugh at you. I cannot laugh at someone for being born black or blonde.
Wait, I have a question. Can you link me to a good study where it deems homosexuality isn't a choice? I've read many different studies which contradict each other. Yes, Christianity, as well as any religion is a choice. However, in my mind, I believe your gender orientation is also a choice. There isn't a gene that makes you like one sex over the other from my understanding.
maybe i don't understand gay people but why would they choose to be gay? if they thought in the same ways as most of us straight guys they likely wouldn't consider being gay. of course i don't know shit about homosexuality, i just can't fathom a straight person deciding to become gay. it just does not compute in my brain.
As someone who is both a christian and a member of the Boy Scouts of America, I would like to present my thoughts (and the thoughts of many in the group).
Before talking about this I will say that I very strongly support acceptance of people regardless of sexuality, but that the negative disposition in the BSA has some merit, even though its origins are not directly related to homosexuality.
A lot of this "homophobia" stuff comes from the boy scout policy of two deep leadership(look it up). That is to say, there cannot be just one boy and one adult with each other at any time. The reason for having this rule is the same reason there exists such rules as a female taking a driver's test may not go alone with a male instructor. There exists some men out there who possess not-so nice intentions (rape among them) and the BSA imposed this rule to shield their young members (those under 18 years of age) away from someone with such intentions, because lets face it, the boy scouts seems like the place to go if you are a homosexual pedophile.
Boy scouts number one concern is safety. I go on a lot of trips and participate in a lot of activities that I would not have been able to do had it not been for BSA, and the numerous BSA safety regulations is what allows large groups of boys to go out and participate in such fun activities without anyone getting separated or into danger. The two deep leadership policy is an obvious attack against homosexuals, but only because homosexual men WITH MALICIOUS INTENT (I'm talking about legit criminal rape) are a common danger to the safety of the BSA and its members.
I wish the boy scouts of america hadn't become so opposed to homosexuality, but one thing leads to another eventually and the two deep leadership practice has instilled such a mindset within it (a mindset that, knowing the origins, I understand, but oppose strongly)
As a christian, I know the bible says homosexuality is wrong and god doesn't like it. I also know that god doesn't like it when we use his name in vain or make an idol or disrespect our parents or break any of god's commandments (which, according to my faith and those educated in common christian beliefs, human beings do all the time). I believe that anyone who treats homosexuality as the greatest affront to god's kingdom and word are missing out a huge part of the bible. They go on to say homosexuals are sinners while neglecting their own sin (the latter part being a one-way ticket to hell, according to the christian beliefs)
I would say that Churches committing crimes against homosexuals is entirely unjust and despicable, and the fact that the BSA denied a minor (as in, the very thing the two deep leadership was supposed to be protecting, not protecting against) his eagle award to be entirely against the fundamentals of scouting (exploring the world and yourself to help you make decisions in your adult life).
I am very willing to talk to anyone about scouting or Christianity if they are willing to debate thoughtfully. I don't want to be in here converting anyone, I just want people to understand the origins of these feelings in the Boys Scouts of America and understand that it is not christianity's fault that christians are mistreating homosexuals or being ignorant to the many facets of our world. I understand that this is the internet and I can't have my way with everyone, but I implore that you don't go about judging these groups based on the actions of a few members.
On October 10 2012 13:18 Djzapz wrote: [quote] 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.
I do not understand why we let such horrible logic slip by. Being Christian is a choice. Being gay is not a choice. Your choices can be criticized and ridiculed. Things that are not your choice cannot.
If you choose to believe that 2+2 = 6 then I can call you stupid and laugh at you. I cannot laugh at someone for being born black or blonde.
Wait, I have a question. Can you link me to a good study where it deems homosexuality isn't a choice? I've read many different studies which contradict each other. Yes, Christianity, as well as any religion is a choice. However, in my mind, I believe your gender orientation is also a choice. There isn't a gene that makes you like one sex over the other from my understanding.
Ask a gay person...why do you need a study? Or, just think about yourself. Was your orientation a choice? If not, why would you assume someone else's is?
On October 11 2012 08:16 Voltaire wrote: Hopefully sexual orientation will be added to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Then the BSA won't be allowed to continue this nonsense anymore.
The problem with the Constitution and the Civil rights argument is that sexual orientation is implicitly embedded in those rights. The problem comes when narrow-minded people want to push a backward homophobic agenda on the issue.
Does the bsa actually get federal funding, I took part in this argument in the last thread, and i think it was found that they do get a "favored group" type deal, I don't think I saw actual proof of government funding. The troop I was in as a scout (which ignored these types of rules with a great deal of pleasure) got all of our funding from selling that freaking popcorn and other fund raisers, and that and donations is where my regional district got its funding from as well.
That being said, all three of the eagle scouts my troop produced have sent in their eagle badges, and I agree with them fully. Unless BSA is getting federal funding they have no reason to allow atheists and gays into the scouts (which huge numbers of troop and even some districts and counsels ignore) and gaining eagle rank (which the national council controls and local units can't change no matter how they want to), but the younger scouts and leaders are not all accordance with the policy of bigotry that the national leaders enforce. The local leaders in my area so blatantly ignored these rules, that I must admit to not having known about these rules until it hit the national media. Just wanted to let you guys know that not all scouts and former scouts share the prejudiced the national counsel in Texas enforce.
On October 11 2012 11:50 Jaaaaasper wrote: Does the bsa actually get federal funding, I took part in this argument in the last thread, and i think it was found that they do get a "favored group" type deal, I don't think I saw actual proof of government funding. The troop I was in as a scout (which ignored these types of rules with a great deal of pleasure) got all of our funding from selling that freaking popcorn and other fund raisers, and that and donations is where my regional district got its funding from as well.
That being said, all three of the eagle scouts my troop produced have sent in their eagle badges, and I agree with them fully. Unless BSA is getting federal funding they have no reason to allow atheists and gays into the scouts (which huge numbers of troop and even some districts and counsels ignore) and gaining eagle rank (which the national council controls and local units can't change no matter how they want to), but the younger scouts and leaders are not all accordance with the policy of bigotry that the national leaders enforce. The local leaders in my area so blatantly ignored these rules, that I must admit to not having known about these rules until it hit the national media. Just wanted to let you guys know that not all scouts and former scouts share the prejudiced the national counsel in Texas enforce.
Yes sir, BSA's funding comes from private donations and fundraisers.
On October 10 2012 13:18 Djzapz wrote: [quote] 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.
I do not understand why we let such horrible logic slip by. Being Christian is a choice. Being gay is not a choice. Your choices can be criticized and ridiculed. Things that are not your choice cannot.
If you choose to believe that 2+2 = 6 then I can call you stupid and laugh at you. I cannot laugh at someone for being born black or blonde.
Wait, I have a question. Can you link me to a good study where it deems homosexuality isn't a choice? I've read many different studies which contradict each other. Yes, Christianity, as well as any religion is a choice. However, in my mind, I believe your gender orientation is also a choice. There isn't a gene that makes you like one sex over the other from my understanding.
Can you link me to a study stating that sexual orientation is a choice, the last guy i asked for this provided me with a Oprah link and a forum post where the person asking the question was called a bunch of nasty names, and obviously had not seen a study to that fact and obviously threw the hail mary google search in hopes of coming up with something. Fell free to post it in here, I think everyone in here would love to see and discuss the studies you are referencing.
On October 10 2012 13:20 dAPhREAk wrote: [quote] 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.
I do not understand why we let such horrible logic slip by. Being Christian is a choice. Being gay is not a choice. Your choices can be criticized and ridiculed. Things that are not your choice cannot.
If you choose to believe that 2+2 = 6 then I can call you stupid and laugh at you. I cannot laugh at someone for being born black or blonde.
Wait, I have a question. Can you link me to a good study where it deems homosexuality isn't a choice? I've read many different studies which contradict each other. Yes, Christianity, as well as any religion is a choice. However, in my mind, I believe your gender orientation is also a choice. There isn't a gene that makes you like one sex over the other from my understanding.
Ask a gay person...why do you need a study? Or, just think about yourself. Was your orientation a choice? If not, why would you assume someone else's is?
I believe that every male and female makes a choice about the orientation. None of us are actually born craving one sex over the other, unless you have a study which can correct me on that. I don't see how one can assume they were born with a preference towards gender orientation. If anything, following nature would make it seem that a homosexual being born is a defect, since you can't reproduce naturally (sounds kind of extremely, but that's why I've been looking for more studies). Personally, I believe it's all based on complex interactions throughout your life which was the deciding factor towards which gender you wish to mate with.
Can you link me to a study stating that sexual orientation is a choice, the last guy i asked for this provided me with a Oprah link and a forum post where the person asking the question was called a bunch of nasty names, and obviously had not seen a study to that fact and obviously threw the hail mary google search in hopes of coming up with something. Fell free to post it in here, I think everyone in here would love to see and discuss the studies you are referencing.
I never claimed to have a study, which is why I asked if he had one.
On October 11 2012 11:50 Jaaaaasper wrote: Does the bsa actually get federal funding, I took part in this argument in the last thread, and i think it was found that they do get a "favored group" type deal, I don't think I saw actual proof of government funding. The troop I was in as a scout (which ignored these types of rules with a great deal of pleasure) got all of our funding from selling that freaking popcorn and other fund raisers, and that and donations is where my regional district got its funding from as well.
That being said, all three of the eagle scouts my troop produced have sent in their eagle badges, and I agree with them fully. Unless BSA is getting federal funding they have no reason to allow atheists and gays into the scouts (which huge numbers of troop and even some districts and counsels ignore) and gaining eagle rank (which the national council controls and local units can't change no matter how they want to), but the younger scouts and leaders are not all accordance with the policy of bigotry that the national leaders enforce. The local leaders in my area so blatantly ignored these rules, that I must admit to not having known about these rules until it hit the national media. Just wanted to let you guys know that not all scouts and former scouts share the prejudiced the national counsel in Texas enforce.
Yes sir, BSA's funding comes from private donations and fundraisers.
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.
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.
I do not understand why we let such horrible logic slip by. Being Christian is a choice. Being gay is not a choice. Your choices can be criticized and ridiculed. Things that are not your choice cannot.
If you choose to believe that 2+2 = 6 then I can call you stupid and laugh at you. I cannot laugh at someone for being born black or blonde.
Wait, I have a question. Can you link me to a good study where it deems homosexuality isn't a choice? I've read many different studies which contradict each other. Yes, Christianity, as well as any religion is a choice. However, in my mind, I believe your gender orientation is also a choice. There isn't a gene that makes you like one sex over the other from my understanding.
Ask a gay person...why do you need a study? Or, just think about yourself. Was your orientation a choice? If not, why would you assume someone else's is?
I believe that every male and female makes a choice about the orientation. None of us are actually born craving one sex over the other, unless you have a study which can correct me on that. I don't see how one can assume they were born with a preference towards gender orientation. If anything, following nature would make it seem that a homosexual being born is a defect, since you can't reproduce naturally (sounds kind of extremely, but that's why I've been looking for more studies). Personally, I believe it's all based on complex interactions throughout your life which was the deciding factor towards which gender you wish to mate with.
Can you link me to a study stating that sexual orientation is a choice, the last guy i asked for this provided me with a Oprah link and a forum post where the person asking the question was called a bunch of nasty names, and obviously had not seen a study to that fact and obviously threw the hail mary google search in hopes of coming up with something. Fell free to post it in here, I think everyone in here would love to see and discuss the studies you are referencing.
I never claimed to have a study, which is why I asked if he had one.
Edit: Added a new quote
I don't remember making a choice to be attracted to women, of course i could just be an anomaly.
On October 10 2012 13:18 Djzapz wrote: [quote] 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.
I do not understand why we let such horrible logic slip by. Being Christian is a choice. Being gay is not a choice. Your choices can be criticized and ridiculed. Things that are not your choice cannot.
If you choose to believe that 2+2 = 6 then I can call you stupid and laugh at you. I cannot laugh at someone for being born black or blonde.
Wait, I have a question. Can you link me to a good study where it deems homosexuality isn't a choice? I've read many different studies which contradict each other. Yes, Christianity, as well as any religion is a choice. However, in my mind, I believe your gender orientation is also a choice. There isn't a gene that makes you like one sex over the other from my understanding.
Why the fuck would anyone want to be homosexual? So many adolescents commit suicide because they hate the fact they are homosexual. The suicide rate for homosexual teens is astronomically higher, as I just verified from 3 different scientific studies on google.
Why does every discussion about discrimination due to sexual orientation have to turn into an argument about whether or not being gay is 'chosen'? It isn't even clear wtf people are talking about.
What does it even mean for your sexual orientation to be a choice? I think what most people mean is that it might be nurture instead of nature, meaning that our experiences, rather than our genetic code, determine our sexual orientation. I have yet to so conclusive proof of either theory there. However, even in the case of nurture, sexuality isn't necessarily a choice.
Hell, if I could choose whether to be attracted to males or females, why couldn't I choose to be attracted to both? (I'd think more 'homosexuals' would do this for social reasons) Or walruses? I'm pretty sure no matter how much I try I'm not going to find walruses sexy (lemonwalrus excluded) :p
If people discussing this would be clear on exactly what they mean we could avoid a lot of pointless contention.
On October 11 2012 12:12 micronesia wrote: Why does every discussion about discrimination due to sexual orientation have to turn into an argument about whether or not being gay is 'chosen'? It isn't even clear wtf people are talking about.
I assume it's because people would rather judge others (it's easier) than allow that someone likes something they themselves don't like and still be compassionate for that person as a human being who isn't harming anyone.
On October 10 2012 13:20 dAPhREAk wrote: [quote] 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.
I do not understand why we let such horrible logic slip by. Being Christian is a choice. Being gay is not a choice. Your choices can be criticized and ridiculed. Things that are not your choice cannot.
If you choose to believe that 2+2 = 6 then I can call you stupid and laugh at you. I cannot laugh at someone for being born black or blonde.
Wait, I have a question. Can you link me to a good study where it deems homosexuality isn't a choice? I've read many different studies which contradict each other. Yes, Christianity, as well as any religion is a choice. However, in my mind, I believe your gender orientation is also a choice. There isn't a gene that makes you like one sex over the other from my understanding.
Why the fuck would anyone want to be homosexual? So many adolescents commit suicide because they hate the fact they are homosexual. The suicide rate for homosexual teens is astronomically higher, as I just verified from 3 different scientific studies on google.
Why would a man want to be homosexual? Well the obvious answer to that question is: He's not attracted to females. The reason why some people hate their orientation is because we as a society treat them harshly. Has anyone seen the movie "Prayer's for Bobby" because I think that's a good example of why the suicide rate is high in our country. Not to mention, the bullying if people find out you're homosexual, etc.
I've also googled many studies, but that doesn't mean the references are always good. The date the studies took place is a good factor to consider as well as who funded the study. The problem in general is, I don't know who's being more biased towards what.
I'm reading something from Discovery magazine. If anyone wants to read it I'll put it as a spoiler, but it's a 4 page read it looks like. + Show Spoiler +
On October 11 2012 12:12 micronesia wrote: Why does every discussion about discrimination due to sexual orientation have to turn into an argument about whether or not being gay is 'chosen'? It isn't even clear wtf people are talking about.
What does it even mean for your sexual orientation to be a choice? I think what most people mean is that it might be nurture instead of nature, meaning that our experiences, rather than our genetic code, determine our sexual orientation. I have yet to so conclusive proof of either theory there. However, even in the case of nurture, sexuality isn't necessarily a choice.
Hell, if I could choose whether to be attracted to males or females, why couldn't I choose to be attracted to both? (I'd think more 'homosexuals' would do this for social reasons) Or walruses? I'm pretty sure no matter how much I try I'm not going to find walruses sexy (lemonwalrus excluded) :p
If people discussing this would be clear on exactly what they mean we could avoid a lot of pointless contention.
funny thing is that for some people, they do choose: BUG ;-)
For all those who are so quick to say that being gay isn't a choice and being religious is, here is some food for thought: God Gene This article suggests that being religious could be genetic. Or at least make us more prone to being religious, which is the same argument for homosexuality. If you Google God gene more articles come up, but I figured with all the anecdotal evidence floating around this was good enough.
On October 11 2012 09:49 kmillz wrote: Seems like being religious is more likely to draw haters than being gay these days. Lucky me, I'm neither.
The amount of hate and stereotyping of religious people on this site is appalling. Don't they see that they are being the bigots they are accusing Christians of being? Instead of trying to change an institution that is devoted to God, why not come up with a more tolerant organization of your own. Instead of being bigoted toward your perceived bigots, why don't you show the tolerance you demand instead? If you are really on the moral high ground, be the example of how you expect the morally superior to behave.
On October 11 2012 12:25 StreetWise wrote: For all those who are so quick to say that being gay isn't a choice and being religious is, here is some food for thought: God Gene This article suggests that being religious could be genetic. Or at least make us more prone to being religious, which is the same argument for homosexuality. If you Google God gene more articles come up, but I figured with all the anecdotal evidence floating around this was good enough.
On October 11 2012 09:49 kmillz wrote: Seems like being religious is more likely to draw haters than being gay these days. Lucky me, I'm neither.
The amount of hate and stereotyping of religious people on this site is appalling. Don't they see that they are being the bigots they are accusing Christians of being? Instead of trying to change an institution that is devoted to God, why not come up with a more tolerant organization of your own. Instead of being bigoted toward your perceived bigots, why don't you show the tolerance you demand instead? If you are really on the moral high ground, be the example of how you expect the morally superior to behave.
demanding tolerance towards bigotry? what in the literal fuck are you talking about?
most people these days condone tolerance completely and totally but are the exact opposite when it comes to tolerating intolerance. Boy scouts is a private organization and they can do what they see fit. If you say you are so tolerant how about you show it by being tolerant of this private organizations beliefs
Boy scouts have every legal right to exclude person's who are gay. Why is this still being discussed? Ala can i go an sue curves for not letting me work out since they are the only gym in the area? no - stop being so thin skinned people or more educated cause im so smart and you should take my opinion as your own.
For all the new comers refusing to do a bit of reading before posting that no one has business being against BSA because it's a private organization. The thing is they use tax payer money from the department of defense to host it's jamborees. They use public equipment and property. Therefore it's a completely legit reasoning for the public to protest their bigotry until they stop accepting public funding in all ways or stop being bigots.
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.
I do not understand why we let such horrible logic slip by. Being Christian is a choice. Being gay is not a choice. Your choices can be criticized and ridiculed. Things that are not your choice cannot.
If you choose to believe that 2+2 = 6 then I can call you stupid and laugh at you. I cannot laugh at someone for being born black or blonde.
Wait, I have a question. Can you link me to a good study where it deems homosexuality isn't a choice? I've read many different studies which contradict each other. Yes, Christianity, as well as any religion is a choice. However, in my mind, I believe your gender orientation is also a choice. There isn't a gene that makes you like one sex over the other from my understanding.
Why the fuck would anyone want to be homosexual? So many adolescents commit suicide because they hate the fact they are homosexual. The suicide rate for homosexual teens is astronomically higher, as I just verified from 3 different scientific studies on google.
Why would a man want to be homosexual? Well the obvious answer to that question is: He's not attracted to females. The reason why some people hate their orientation is because we as a society treat them harshly. Has anyone seen the movie "Prayer's for Bobby" because I think that's a good example of why the suicide rate is high in our country. Not to mention, the bullying if people find out you're homosexual, etc.
I've also googled many studies, but that doesn't mean the references are always good. The date the studies took place is a good factor to consider as well as who funded the study. The problem in general is, I don't know who's being more biased towards what.
I'm reading something from Discovery magazine. If anyone wants to read it I'll put it as a spoiler, but it's a 4 page read it looks like. + Show Spoiler +
What? That's not wanting to be homosexual. Homosexuality means you prefer your own sex over the opposite sex. Clearly, the ones committing suicide wish they did NOT prefer the same sex over the opposite sex. Or you know, they wouldn't be super friggin' depressed.
On October 11 2012 12:30 apoch wrote: most people these days condone tolerance completely and totally but are the exact opposite when it comes to tolerating intolerance. Boy scouts is a private organization and they can do what they see fit. If you say you are so tolerant how about you show it by being tolerant of this private organizations beliefs
Tolerate my intolerance! And give us federal aid!
But seriously that isn't an argument. I support the BSA's right to discriminate against gays wholeheartedly. However that means they should not receive any government benefits whatsoever. They do. Thus they are under the scrutiny of the public.
On October 11 2012 11:15 micronesia wrote: 173.231.136.216 United States New York New York City Voxel Dot Net Inc.
How you determine what country this website is from, I'm not sure.
Making fun of people because they hold what you think to be dumb ideas is very questionable though. You aren't exactly making the world a better place if you know what I mean.
Actually, they hold demonstrably dumb ideas and everyone should feel free to make as much fun of them as they want.
Anyway, anyone who thinks being gay is a choice should do one (or more) of the following:
Ask yourself if you chose to be attracted to the opposite sex. When did you choose this? Can you revert it by sheer willpower and suddenly become attracted to the same sex?
Ask a homosexual if they chose their sexual orientation.
Ask yourself why, in a world so filled with homophobic morons, anyone would willingly choose to be hated and persecuted by so many people. Why would a high-school kid being bullied every day for being gay not just simply start being attracted to women? Why would anyone kill themselves over something they can so easily just change?
Also, as has been said, private organisations can do whatever they want, but if they get government support there is a big issue here.
On October 11 2012 12:30 apoch wrote: most people these days condone tolerance completely and totally but are the exact opposite when it comes to tolerating intolerance. Boy scouts is a private organization and they can do what they see fit. If you say you are so tolerant how about you show it by being tolerant of this private organizations beliefs
Tolerate my intolerance! And give us federal aid!
But seriously that isn't an argument. I support the BSA's right to discriminate against gays wholeheartedly. However that means they should not receive any government benefits whatsoever. They do. Thus they are under the scrutiny of the public.
you have to tolerate intolerance... that's part of being an american and having freedom to believe whatever you want
On October 11 2012 12:30 apoch wrote: most people these days condone tolerance completely and totally but are the exact opposite when it comes to tolerating intolerance. Boy scouts is a private organization and they can do what they see fit. If you say you are so tolerant how about you show it by being tolerant of this private organizations beliefs
Tolerate my intolerance! And give us federal aid!
But seriously that isn't an argument. I support the BSA's right to discriminate against gays wholeheartedly. However that means they should not receive any government benefits whatsoever. They do. Thus they are under the scrutiny of the public.
you have to tolerate intolerance... that's part of being an american and having freedom to believe whatever you want
except they use taxpayer money for their benefit, so no you don't have to tolerate them.
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
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
In what sense is your stance on homosexuality or human rights "factually" provable? In what sense are you "objectively" correct?
"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.
I really don't get why people make threads like this...
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.
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.
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.
Afaik the scouts become subsides/funding via goverment? There is your problem, it's not so private anymore when the goverment is directly supporting it, isn't it?
I personally would be against any rule that just "outlaws" homosexuals but well, the above should ring a bell to just about anyone...
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....
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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
On October 11 2012 22:56 kmillz wrote:
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?
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.
I don't think it's typical for boys to join the girl scouts (although from what I've read they make some accommodations for gray areas). Currently there is no reasonable alternative to the BSA in most areas, if you are looking for several things that the BSA offer.
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.
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.
Actually the last one (2010) was held at fort hill, and was funded with tax payer money. It's moving next year and will still have tax payer money spent as you have said, although more likely in the form of shuttling troops and equipment. Therefore it's completely understandable for tax payers to be critical of their bigoted ways.
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.
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.
Actually the last one (2010) was held at fort hill, and was funded with tax payer money. It's moving next year and will still have tax payer money spent as you have said, although more likely in the form of shuttling troops and equipment. Therefore it's completely understandable for tax payers to be critical of their bigoted ways.
As a taxpayer, I know it sticks in my craw when the Department of Defense pays to shuttle troops to a training exercise!
I love all the tolerance talk from the pro-gay side, but in reality most of them are like the OP on the internet and just shit-talk everyone else that doesn't agree with them, and writes them off as bigots. ㄴㅇㄴ
Edit: I guess what I've always found both ironic and disgusting is the fact that political correctness and "tolerance" whateverthefuckthatmeans, has always been one sided regardless of people's opinions and arguements. Either you're on the liberal, politically correct side OR you are a fucking asshole bigot Bible thumping non-tolerant idiot and uninformed regardless of your reasons.
On October 12 2012 01:36 Nightshade_ wrote: I love all the tolerance talk from the pro-gay side, but in reality most of them are like the OP on the internet and just shit-talk everyone else that doesn't agree with them, and writes them off as bigots. ㄴㅇㄴ
Edit: I guess what I've always found both ironic and disgusting is the fact that political correctness and "tolerance" whateverthefuckthatmeans, has always been one sided regardless of people's opinions and arguements. Either you're on the liberal, politically correct side OR you are a fucking asshole bigot Bible thumping non-tolerant idiot and uninformed regardless of your reasons.
we get it you and your possible alt accounts think people should be tolerant to intolerance.
On October 12 2012 01:36 Nightshade_ wrote: I love all the tolerance talk from the pro-gay side, but in reality most of them are like the OP on the internet and just shit-talk everyone else that doesn't agree with them, and writes them off as bigots. ㄴㅇㄴ
Edit: I guess what I've always found both ironic and disgusting is the fact that political correctness and "tolerance" whateverthefuckthatmeans, has always been one sided regardless of people's opinions and arguements. Either you're on the liberal, politically correct side OR you are a fucking asshole bigot Bible thumping non-tolerant idiot and uninformed regardless of your reasons.
we get it you and your alt accounts think people should be tolerant to intolerance.
:D I love seeing situations like this arise because all I can think is back through history he'd be the guy "Blacks sit at the back of the bus, it's the bus companies decision" or "Women shouldn't get paid fairly, it's the business choice" etc etc. He just gets up, drinks the kool-aid he's told and repeats every day.
On October 12 2012 01:36 Nightshade_ wrote: I love all the tolerance talk from the pro-gay side, but in reality most of them are like the OP on the internet and just shit-talk everyone else that doesn't agree with them, and writes them off as bigots. ㄴㅇㄴ
Edit: I guess what I've always found both ironic and disgusting is the fact that political correctness and "tolerance" whateverthefuckthatmeans, has always been one sided regardless of people's opinions and arguements. Either you're on the liberal, politically correct side OR you are a fucking asshole bigot Bible thumping non-tolerant idiot and uninformed regardless of your reasons.
we get it you and your possible alt accounts think people should be tolerant to intolerance.
Well that WOULD be my argument had I said that, but it appears you are role-playing the strawman from the wizard of Oz at the moment, so I'll get back to you when you're done with that.
On October 12 2012 01:36 Nightshade_ wrote: I love all the tolerance talk from the pro-gay side, but in reality most of them are like the OP on the internet and just shit-talk everyone else that doesn't agree with them, and writes them off as bigots. ㄴㅇㄴ
Edit: I guess what I've always found both ironic and disgusting is the fact that political correctness and "tolerance" whateverthefuckthatmeans, has always been one sided regardless of people's opinions and arguements. Either you're on the liberal, politically correct side OR you are a fucking asshole bigot Bible thumping non-tolerant idiot and uninformed regardless of your reasons.
we get it you and your possible alt accounts think people should be tolerant to intolerance.
Well that WOULD be my argument had I said that, but it appears you are role-playing the strawman from the wizard of Oz at the moment, so I'll get back to you when you're done with that.
If that would be your argument then he's making noo strawman argument. A strawman is to derive an argument/conclusion that is different then what the actual argument/conclusion really is to try and make said position weaker. If your argument is his strawman then it simply is an argument, not a strawman.
On October 12 2012 01:36 Nightshade_ wrote: I love all the tolerance talk from the pro-gay side, but in reality most of them are like the OP on the internet and just shit-talk everyone else that doesn't agree with them, and writes them off as bigots. ㄴㅇㄴ
Edit: I guess what I've always found both ironic and disgusting is the fact that political correctness and "tolerance" whateverthefuckthatmeans, has always been one sided regardless of people's opinions and arguements. Either you're on the liberal, politically correct side OR you are a fucking asshole bigot Bible thumping non-tolerant idiot and uninformed regardless of your reasons.
we get it you and your possible alt accounts think people should be tolerant to intolerance.
Well that WOULD be my argument had I said that, but it appears you are role-playing the strawman from the wizard of Oz at the moment, so I'll get back to you when you're done with that.
If that would be your argument then he's making noo strawman argument. A strawman is to derive an argument/conclusion that is different then what the actual argument/conclusion really is to try and make said position weaker. If your argument is his strawman then it simply is an argument, not a strawman.
T.T
uh what. I literally said that most people who preach "tolerance" are hypocrites. Please quote me where I said that we should tolerate intolerance, and please, bring it to my attention.
On October 12 2012 01:36 Nightshade_ wrote: I love all the tolerance talk from the pro-gay side, but in reality most of them are like the OP on the internet and just shit-talk everyone else that doesn't agree with them, and writes them off as bigots. ㄴㅇㄴ
Edit: I guess what I've always found both ironic and disgusting is the fact that political correctness and "tolerance" whateverthefuckthatmeans, has always been one sided regardless of people's opinions and arguements. Either you're on the liberal, politically correct side OR you are a fucking asshole bigot Bible thumping non-tolerant idiot and uninformed regardless of your reasons.
we get it you and your possible alt accounts think people should be tolerant to intolerance.
Well that WOULD be my argument had I said that, but it appears you are role-playing the strawman from the wizard of Oz at the moment, so I'll get back to you when you're done with that.
If that would be your argument then he's making noo strawman argument. A strawman is to derive an argument/conclusion that is different then what the actual argument/conclusion really is to try and make said position weaker. If your argument is his strawman then it simply is an argument, not a strawman.
T.T
uh what. I literally said that most people who preach "tolerance" are hypocrites. Please quote me where I said that we should tolerate intolerance, and please, bring it to my attention.
Well that WOULD be my argument had I said that,
Saying "I would have put it that way" and then saying his statement or presentation of your argument is in strawman form either means 2 things 1) You lied and you wouldn't present it that way, thus making it a strawman or 2) You accept the stance he's presenting thus making it not a strawman because it literally would be your argument.
I never said you said anything other then admitting you would have put it similar to how he formulated his position.
On October 12 2012 01:36 Nightshade_ wrote: I love all the tolerance talk from the pro-gay side, but in reality most of them are like the OP on the internet and just shit-talk everyone else that doesn't agree with them, and writes them off as bigots. ㄴㅇㄴ
Edit: I guess what I've always found both ironic and disgusting is the fact that political correctness and "tolerance" whateverthefuckthatmeans, has always been one sided regardless of people's opinions and arguements. Either you're on the liberal, politically correct side OR you are a fucking asshole bigot Bible thumping non-tolerant idiot and uninformed regardless of your reasons.
we get it you and your possible alt accounts think people should be tolerant to intolerance.
Well that WOULD be my argument had I said that, but it appears you are role-playing the strawman from the wizard of Oz at the moment, so I'll get back to you when you're done with that.
If that would be your argument then he's making noo strawman argument. A strawman is to derive an argument/conclusion that is different then what the actual argument/conclusion really is to try and make said position weaker. If your argument is his strawman then it simply is an argument, not a strawman.
T.T
uh what. I literally said that most people who preach "tolerance" are hypocrites. Please quote me where I said that we should tolerate intolerance, and please, bring it to my attention.
Saying "I would have put it that way" and then saying his statement or presentation of your argument is in strawman form either means 2 things 1) You lied and you wouldn't present it that way, thus making it a strawman or 2) You accept the stance he's presenting thus making it not a strawman because it literally would be your argument.
I never said you said anything other then admitting you would have put it similar to how he formulated his position.
Has it occurred to you I was never responding to you???? And please stop quoting random shit out of context, it makes my head hurt.
On October 12 2012 01:36 Nightshade_ wrote: I love all the tolerance talk from the pro-gay side, but in reality most of them are like the OP on the internet and just shit-talk everyone else that doesn't agree with them, and writes them off as bigots. ㄴㅇㄴ
Edit: I guess what I've always found both ironic and disgusting is the fact that political correctness and "tolerance" whateverthefuckthatmeans, has always been one sided regardless of people's opinions and arguements. Either you're on the liberal, politically correct side OR you are a fucking asshole bigot Bible thumping non-tolerant idiot and uninformed regardless of your reasons.
we get it you and your possible alt accounts think people should be tolerant to intolerance.
Well that WOULD be my argument had I said that, but it appears you are role-playing the strawman from the wizard of Oz at the moment, so I'll get back to you when you're done with that.
If that would be your argument then he's making noo strawman argument. A strawman is to derive an argument/conclusion that is different then what the actual argument/conclusion really is to try and make said position weaker. If your argument is his strawman then it simply is an argument, not a strawman.
T.T
uh what. I literally said that most people who preach "tolerance" are hypocrites. Please quote me where I said that we should tolerate intolerance, and please, bring it to my attention.
Well that WOULD be my argument had I said that,
Saying "I would have put it that way" and then saying his statement or presentation of your argument is in strawman form either means 2 things 1) You lied and you wouldn't present it that way, thus making it a strawman or 2) You accept the stance he's presenting thus making it not a strawman because it literally would be your argument.
I never said you said anything other then admitting you would have put it similar to how he formulated his position.
Has it occurred to you I was never responding to you???? And please stop quoting random shit out of context, it makes my head hurt.
Are you alright? You've resorted from actually trying to show why it was a strawman to saying "oh golly" like remarks. Either show how it was a strawman or don't but no need to add rhetoric after being upset by a similar fallacy
Nothing I quoted was out of context and you weren't replying to me nor were you accusing me of making a strawman. I simply stated your strawman makes no sense when you concur that your argument would be his "strawman". That just means your argument is exactly how he presented and it is not exaggerated nor a strawman.
On October 12 2012 01:36 Nightshade_ wrote: I love all the tolerance talk from the pro-gay side, but in reality most of them are like the OP on the internet and just shit-talk everyone else that doesn't agree with them, and writes them off as bigots. ㄴㅇㄴ
Edit: I guess what I've always found both ironic and disgusting is the fact that political correctness and "tolerance" whateverthefuckthatmeans, has always been one sided regardless of people's opinions and arguements. Either you're on the liberal, politically correct side OR you are a fucking asshole bigot Bible thumping non-tolerant idiot and uninformed regardless of your reasons.
we get it you and your possible alt accounts think people should be tolerant to intolerance.
Well that WOULD be my argument had I said that, but it appears you are role-playing the strawman from the wizard of Oz at the moment, so I'll get back to you when you're done with that.
If that would be your argument then he's making noo strawman argument. A strawman is to derive an argument/conclusion that is different then what the actual argument/conclusion really is to try and make said position weaker. If your argument is his strawman then it simply is an argument, not a strawman.
T.T
uh what. I literally said that most people who preach "tolerance" are hypocrites. Please quote me where I said that we should tolerate intolerance, and please, bring it to my attention.
But dude, what they are intolerant of is intolerance.. why don't you state your fucking views instead of screaming strawman over and over again.. so annoying.
Nightshade_, I don't like an organization that receives federal funding and is theoretically open to all boys in an age group of physical fitness begin to impose exclusions based upon sexual orientation.
Firstly, the organization of the boy scouts is does NOT receive their operating costs from the gov. Funding from jamborees, regardless of if its from the DoD or otherwise doesn't mean they are funding the BSA.
BSA is always a recruiting ground for the military, so for the DoD to give it money, and its a pretty small amount of money relatively. (we have a 14 trillion dollar a year economy and over 30 years the gov. have granted 29 million to the BSA? that's a drop of piss in a well..... those 29 million dollars wouldn't fix the economy.....not even close...) really doesn't change the issue and doesn't have a bearing on whether or not the BSA supports/not gays. (I do completely disagree with the BSA's stance even though I am an Eagle scout.)
Court case aside because it doesn't matter too much in the overall argument. Plenty of cultural institutions(I.e. museums) receive grants from the gov. and yet they are still private institutions. (95% of museums in USA are private, unlike most of europe.) All they are allowed to do with the grant money is what they applied for. A museum can receive money from an openly anti-gay foundation. But if their grant is for restoring an old building? that's all they do with that money, it doesn't mean they hate gays..... everyone is tight for money now... especially non-profits... so where they get their money (if there isn't a conflict of interest) doesn't matter in my eyes.
the DoD didn't give them money for things outside of the Jamborees... (at least in my understanding.) So i dunno why this matters.....
On October 12 2012 02:02 Ravensong170 wrote: Firstly, the organization of the boy scouts is does NOT receive their operating costs from the gov. Funding from jamborees, regardless of if its from the DoD or otherwise doesn't mean they are funding the BSA.
BSA is always a recruiting ground for the military, so for the DoD to give it money, and its a pretty small amount of money relatively. (we have a 14 trillion dollar a year economy and over 30 years the gov. have granted 29 million to the BSA? that's a drop of piss in a well..... those 29 million dollars wouldn't fix the economy.....not even close...) really doesn't change the issue and doesn't have a bearing on whether or not the BSA supports/not gays. (I do completely disagree with the BSA's stance even though I am an Eagle scout.)
Court case aside because it doesn't matter too much in the overall argument. Plenty of cultural institutions(I.e. museums) receive grants from the gov. and yet they are still private institutions. (95% of museums in USA are private, unlike most of europe.) All they are allowed to do with the grant money is what they applied for. A museum can receive money from an openly anti-gay foundation. But if their grant is for restoring an old building? that's all they do with that money, it doesn't mean they hate gays..... everyone is tight for money now... especially non-profits... so where they get their money (if there isn't a conflict of interest) doesn't matter in my eyes.
the DoD didn't give them money for things outside of the Jamborees... (at least in my understanding.) So i dunno why this matters.....
I think it's more to the point that they receive approximately 1 million dollars every year from tax payers money. No matter the "piss in the well" it's the principle of supporting a barbaric ideology. If they want that piss in the well they should then act accordingly. I'm sure they would suffer greatly from losing 1 million a year.
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.
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.
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?
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,
With regard to this boyscout situation, how exactly does being a homosexual have anything to do with being qualified to be a boyscout? You can say you're not being hateful towards gay people yet you end up discriminating against them with your actions. I can say I am not sexist and harbor no ill feelings towards women, but then contrary to my intentions, I treat them like second class citizens.
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.
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.
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?
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,
With regard to this boyscout situation, how exactly does being a homosexual have anything to do with being qualified to be a boyscout? You can say you're not being hateful towards gay people yet you end up discriminating against them with your actions. I can say I am not sexist and harbor no ill feelings towards women, but then contrary to my intentions, I treat them like second class citizens.
Yes and in your example you would be in the wrong, but a lot of Christians can't seem to make that connection for some reason. I guess because its only their opinion, and opinions can't be wrong (2+2=5...?).
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.
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.
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?
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,
With regard to this boyscout situation, how exactly does being a homosexual have anything to do with being qualified to be a boyscout? You can say you're not being hateful towards gay people yet you end up discriminating against them with your actions. I can say I am not sexist and harbor no ill feelings towards women, but then contrary to my intentions, I treat them like second class citizens.
Yes and in your example you would be in the wrong, but a lot of Christians can't seem to make that connection for some reason. I guess because its only their opinion, and opinions can't be wrong (2+2=5...?).
If we take the position that it's an opinion and that an absolute answer cannot be determined or is yet to be determined, then a more progressive person would be inclined to take the stance that promotes a more positive/peaceful outcome. Like who does it hurt exactly to allow gays to be boyscouts?
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.
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.
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?
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,
With regard to this boyscout situation, how exactly does being a homosexual have anything to do with being qualified to be a boyscout? You can say you're not being hateful towards gay people yet you end up discriminating against them with your actions. I can say I am not sexist and harbor no ill feelings towards women, but then contrary to my intentions, I treat them like second class citizens.
Yes and in your example you would be in the wrong, but a lot of Christians can't seem to make that connection for some reason. I guess because its only their opinion, and opinions can't be wrong (2+2=5...?).
If we take the position that it's an opinion and that an absolute answer cannot be determined or is yet to be determined, then a more progressive person would be inclined to take the stance that promotes a more positive/peaceful outcome. Like who does it hurt exactly to allow gays to be boyscouts?
Exactly. If it really is just an opinion...then how can you even make rules one way or another?
On October 12 2012 02:02 Ravensong170 wrote: Firstly, the organization of the boy scouts is does NOT receive their operating costs from the gov. Funding from jamborees, regardless of if its from the DoD or otherwise doesn't mean they are funding the BSA.
BSA is always a recruiting ground for the military, so for the DoD to give it money, and its a pretty small amount of money relatively. (we have a 14 trillion dollar a year economy and over 30 years the gov. have granted 29 million to the BSA? that's a drop of piss in a well..... those 29 million dollars wouldn't fix the economy.....not even close...) really doesn't change the issue and doesn't have a bearing on whether or not the BSA supports/not gays. (I do completely disagree with the BSA's stance even though I am an Eagle scout.)
Court case aside because it doesn't matter too much in the overall argument. Plenty of cultural institutions(I.e. museums) receive grants from the gov. and yet they are still private institutions. (95% of museums in USA are private, unlike most of europe.) All they are allowed to do with the grant money is what they applied for. A museum can receive money from an openly anti-gay foundation. But if their grant is for restoring an old building? that's all they do with that money, it doesn't mean they hate gays..... everyone is tight for money now... especially non-profits... so where they get their money (if there isn't a conflict of interest) doesn't matter in my eyes.
the DoD didn't give them money for things outside of the Jamborees... (at least in my understanding.) So i dunno why this matters.....
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.
On October 11 2012 22:56 kmillz wrote:
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?
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.
I don't think it's typical for boys to join the girl scouts (although from what I've read they make some accommodations for gray areas). Currently there is no reasonable alternative to the BSA in most areas, if you are looking for several things that the BSA offer.
why does it matter if there are reasonable alternatives?
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.
On October 11 2012 22:56 kmillz wrote:
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?
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.
I don't think it's typical for boys to join the girl scouts (although from what I've read they make some accommodations for gray areas). Currently there is no reasonable alternative to the BSA in most areas, if you are looking for several things that the BSA offer.
why does it matter if there are reasonable alternatives?
Why would a boy join girl scouts? I am so confused.
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.
On October 11 2012 22:56 kmillz wrote:
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?
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.
I don't think it's typical for boys to join the girl scouts (although from what I've read they make some accommodations for gray areas). Currently there is no reasonable alternative to the BSA in most areas, if you are looking for several things that the BSA offer.
why does it matter if there are reasonable alternatives?
Why would a boy join girl scouts? I am so confused.
That's not what he's asking. He's asking why it's even necessary that there need to be separation in the first place. There are cases where is reasonable basis to have separation, but in a case like this, where is the basis?
I know that this whole thing comes down to two closed-minded groups trying to shove each other's viewpoints down each other's throats, but how does someone who is literally days away from their Eagle award decide that they must go and tell everyone that they're gay right there and right then. He could have waited all of a day after he got it to come out, and nobody would be raging in this thread. I feel like this had to be done on purpose to get a reaction, I refuse to believe that anyone who put that much of their time and effort into scouting could be that short-sighted, it simply can't be a thing.
On October 12 2012 04:48 Kmatt wrote: I know that this whole thing comes down to two closed-minded groups trying to shove each other's viewpoints down each other's throats, but how does someone who is literally days away from their Eagle award decide that they must go and tell everyone that they're gay right there and right then. He could have waited all of a day after he got it to come out, and nobody would be raging in this thread. I feel like this had to be done on purpose to get a reaction, I refuse to believe that anyone who put that much of their time and effort into scouting could be that short-sighted, it simply can't be a thing.
My guess would be to draw more attention to the BSA policy than if he had just gotten the award. Now instead of it being "boy not allowed in boy scouts because he is gay" it is "boy denied eagle scout award because he is gay".
On October 12 2012 04:48 Kmatt wrote: I know that this whole thing comes down to two closed-minded groups trying to shove each other's viewpoints down each other's throats, but how does someone who is literally days away from their Eagle award decide that they must go and tell everyone that they're gay right there and right then. He could have waited all of a day after he got it to come out, and nobody would be raging in this thread. I feel like this had to be done on purpose to get a reaction, I refuse to believe that anyone who put that much of their time and effort into scouting could be that short-sighted, it simply can't be a thing.
The point is It shouldn't be an issue in the first place.
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.
On October 11 2012 22:56 kmillz wrote:
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?
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.
I don't think it's typical for boys to join the girl scouts (although from what I've read they make some accommodations for gray areas). Currently there is no reasonable alternative to the BSA in most areas, if you are looking for several things that the BSA offer.
why does it matter if there are reasonable alternatives?
Same thing as my sports analogy I gave near the beginning of the quote chain.
does anyone have any experience with this stuff coming up in practice? when i was in scouts as a kid, 7-8 or so i think, sexuality certainly wasnt on my mind. im not supporting the homophobic stance im just curious about real life occurrences of this and what the end result was.
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.
On October 11 2012 22:56 kmillz wrote:
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?
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.
I don't think it's typical for boys to join the girl scouts (although from what I've read they make some accommodations for gray areas). Currently there is no reasonable alternative to the BSA in most areas, if you are looking for several things that the BSA offer.
why does it matter if there are reasonable alternatives?
Same thing as my sports analogy I gave near the beginning of the quote chain.
he was saying dont join the BSA; he wasnt saying join a reasonable alternative. so i was unclear why there not being a reasonable alternative even mattered. plus, just because there isn't a reasonable alternative doesnt mean that a private organization should be required to open its doors to everyone.
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.
On October 11 2012 22:56 kmillz wrote:
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?
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.
I don't think it's typical for boys to join the girl scouts (although from what I've read they make some accommodations for gray areas). Currently there is no reasonable alternative to the BSA in most areas, if you are looking for several things that the BSA offer.
why does it matter if there are reasonable alternatives?
Same thing as my sports analogy I gave near the beginning of the quote chain.
he was saying dont join the BSA; he wasnt saying join a reasonable alternative. so i was unclear why there not being a reasonable alternative even mattered. plus, just because there isn't a reasonable alternative doesnt mean that a private organization should be required to open its doors to everyone.
Oh, the BSA isn't required to... not saying that. I'm saying the decision not to join the BSA because you are gay, atheistic, etc, isn't necessarily easy. BSA has a monopoly on certain services. Telling someone who wants the general BSA experience that they unilaterally shouldn't because they don't meet one of the silly membership criteria isn't something I would do, personally.
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.
On October 11 2012 22:56 kmillz wrote:
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?
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.
I don't think it's typical for boys to join the girl scouts (although from what I've read they make some accommodations for gray areas). Currently there is no reasonable alternative to the BSA in most areas, if you are looking for several things that the BSA offer.
why does it matter if there are reasonable alternatives?
Same thing as my sports analogy I gave near the beginning of the quote chain.
he was saying dont join the BSA; he wasnt saying join a reasonable alternative. so i was unclear why there not being a reasonable alternative even mattered. plus, just because there isn't a reasonable alternative doesnt mean that a private organization should be required to open its doors to everyone.
Oh, the BSA isn't required to... not saying that. I'm saying the decision not to join the BSA because you are gay, atheistic, etc, isn't necessarily easy. BSA has a monopoly on certain services. Telling someone who wants the general BSA experience that they unilaterally shouldn't because they don't meet one of the silly membership criteria isn't something I would do, personally.
Part of the problem is BSA is in somewhat of a damned if you do damned if you don't situation in regards to the people in their group not wanting the policy to change. There are plenty of people in BSA that do support changing the policies, but I'm inclined to think more of them would oppose it due to irrational fears of pedophiles and because they believe homosexuality is a sin and don't want it around their children (not that it can be avoided anywhere else in their life) and they would also see it as disruptive to their (and their children's) faith. If they change their policy they are going to get alot of backlash from the people in their community that support them.
It's looking like this may change. If you don't want to read the article, it basically says that a repeal is being actively considered, and the next-in-line to head the scouts is decidedly for allowing homosexual members. It is from NBC though, and they would certainly have a perhaps overly-optimistic view of the situation.
On October 09 2012 00:47 neversummer wrote: First of all I don't think anyone is supporting the Boy Scouts of America.
Secondly I applaud them for maintaining their position in the midst of criticism from the community; I've never really cared for what is "politically" correct and quite frankly I don't think gay men should be prancing around with large groups of 8-10 year old boys.
User was temp banned for this post.
People like this... sigh.
In their narrowminded view gay automaticly means they are active pedosexuals too.
Teamliquid is an great site. I like that these topics can be discussed with some success here. Its a good thing.
Heres one of my trains of thought: What is the main force behind the stance that homosexuality is ok? If its a do whatever makes you happy but doesn't harm society idea.... Whats wrong with beastiality? It wont harm anybody? (cept some diseases theoretically) yet many many people who state homosexuality is fine would say that beastiality is wrong.
Where do people without a belief set (religious or otherwise) decide what is right/wrong, what should be tolerated/intolerated get their understanding from?
A Christian follows and agrees with the principles that are taught from a power higher than them.
How do most atheists decide what is acceptable and what is not?
I hope this post is not taken the wrong way. I lack a full understanding of atheist viewpoints.
On January 29 2013 11:53 HumpingHydra wrote: Teamliquid is an great site. I like that these topics can be discussed with some success here. Its a good thing.
Heres one of my trains of thought: What is the main force behind the stance that homosexuality is ok? If its a do whatever makes you happy but doesn't harm society idea.... Whats wrong with beastiality? It wont harm anybody? (cept some diseases theoretically) yet many many people who state homosexuality is fine would say that beastiality is wrong.
Where do people without a belief set (religious or otherwise) decide what is right/wrong, what should be tolerated/intolerated get their understanding from?
A Christian follows and agrees with the principles that are taught from a power higher than them.
How do most atheists decide what is acceptable and what is not?
I hope this post is not taken the wrong way. I lack a full understanding of atheist viewpoints.
Ah yes, the good ole bestiality and homosexuality comparisons made by people too busy to actually think for a few seconds.
Can a man say no? Yes. Can an animal? End of discussion. Damn that was hard to think through, eh?
Edit: don't know why I expect anything different from someone who in the same post says he follows higher power morals not realizing he's been taught all his morals by other humans and not God.
On January 29 2013 11:53 HumpingHydra wrote: Teamliquid is an great site. I like that these topics can be discussed with some success here. Its a good thing.
Heres one of my trains of thought: What is the main force behind the stance that homosexuality is ok? If its a do whatever makes you happy but doesn't harm society idea.... Whats wrong with beastiality? It wont harm anybody? (cept some diseases theoretically) yet many many people who state homosexuality is fine would say that beastiality is wrong.
Where do people without a belief set (religious or otherwise) decide what is right/wrong, what should be tolerated/intolerated get their understanding from?
A Christian follows and agrees with the principles that are taught from a power higher than them.
How do most atheists decide what is acceptable and what is not?
I hope this post is not taken the wrong way. I lack a full understanding of atheist viewpoints.
Atheists use philosophy (reason and logic) to find out morality among other things. Though being an atheist doesn't make you moral or immoral, it's simply the unbelief in a particular religion. The religious morality is actually quite relativistic, handed down to them by personally chosen (or by human authority) revelations. Lastly, the thought that homosexuality is ok doesn't mean you believe to do whatever makes you happy. In other words, the latter idea is not necessary for the former. There simply is no reason to believe that homosexuality is wrong. (NOTE: I said reason, not revelation). In reply, I ask you this: what is the main force behind the stance that homosexuality is wrong? You will find only hatred, irrationality, or self appointed human authority in this pursuit.
On January 29 2013 11:53 HumpingHydra wrote: Teamliquid is an great site. I like that these topics can be discussed with some success here. Its a good thing.
Heres one of my trains of thought: What is the main force behind the stance that homosexuality is ok? If its a do whatever makes you happy but doesn't harm society idea.... Whats wrong with beastiality? It wont harm anybody? (cept some diseases theoretically) yet many many people who state homosexuality is fine would say that beastiality is wrong.
Where do people without a belief set (religious or otherwise) decide what is right/wrong, what should be tolerated/intolerated get their understanding from?
A Christian follows and agrees with the principles that are taught from a power higher than them.
How do most atheists decide what is acceptable and what is not?
I hope this post is not taken the wrong way. I lack a full understanding of atheist viewpoints.
First of all I love your name. Atheists and religious people learn their values from the same place: their parents and people they respect. Atheists just don't believe they will be damned for eternity for doing things that go against those values. Does this mean they are less likely to follow them? I don't know. The subject matter here is really just as much about religion as it is about the policy of the boyscouts so I don't think it's a big deal to address that first. Bestiality is wrong because humans function on a different level than animals. This is a very crude comparison but it's similar to why it's unacceptable for adults to have relationships with children.
It's looking like this may change. If you don't want to read the article, it basically says that a repeal is being actively considered, and the next-in-line to head the scouts is decidedly for allowing homosexual members. It is from NBC though, and they would certainly have a perhaps overly-optimistic view of the situation.
This is the reason the thread got bumped so posts since this probably should be in response to it. It's good news that this is a possibility. Baby steps right? I still find it saddening that many of the sponsors of the Boyscouts are still so openly hateful of homosexuality because of Christianity.
On January 29 2013 11:53 HumpingHydra wrote: Teamliquid is an great site. I like that these topics can be discussed with some success here. Its a good thing.
Heres one of my trains of thought: What is the main force behind the stance that homosexuality is ok? If its a do whatever makes you happy but doesn't harm society idea.... Whats wrong with beastiality? It wont harm anybody? (cept some diseases theoretically) yet many many people who state homosexuality is fine would say that beastiality is wrong.
Where do people without a belief set (religious or otherwise) decide what is right/wrong, what should be tolerated/intolerated get their understanding from?
A Christian follows and agrees with the principles that are taught from a power higher than them.
How do most atheists decide what is acceptable and what is not?
I hope this post is not taken the wrong way. I lack a full understanding of atheist viewpoints.
Teamliquid is hardly a great discussion site. The moderators here have a very specific world view (atheist, socialist, socially liberal, etc.) and any ideas outside that are either mocked or infracted or banned.
Which is perfectly fine of course, these are private forums and the people who run them can choose to have them be nothing more than an echo chamber if that's what they want.
On January 29 2013 11:53 HumpingHydra wrote: Teamliquid is an great site. I like that these topics can be discussed with some success here. Its a good thing.
Heres one of my trains of thought: What is the main force behind the stance that homosexuality is ok? If its a do whatever makes you happy but doesn't harm society idea.... Whats wrong with beastiality? It wont harm anybody? (cept some diseases theoretically) yet many many people who state homosexuality is fine would say that beastiality is wrong.
Where do people without a belief set (religious or otherwise) decide what is right/wrong, what should be tolerated/intolerated get their understanding from?
A Christian follows and agrees with the principles that are taught from a power higher than them.
How do most atheists decide what is acceptable and what is not?
I hope this post is not taken the wrong way. I lack a full understanding of atheist viewpoints.
Atheists use philosophy (reason and logic) to find out morality among other things. Though being an atheist doesn't make you moral or immoral, it's simply the unbelief in a particular religion. The religious morality is actually quite relativistic, handed down to them by personally chosen (or by human authority) revelations. Lastly, the thought that homosexuality is ok doesn't mean you believe to do whatever makes you happy. In other words, the latter idea is not necessary for the former. There simply is no reason to believe that homosexuality is wrong. (NOTE: I said reason, not revelation). In reply, I ask you this: what is the main force behind the stance that homosexuality is wrong? You will find only hatred, irrationality, or self appointed human authority in this pursuit.
Any christian who has been lead to christianity through his own experiences will pretty much agree with everything youve said. The bible is pretty clear that none of us are perfect. Paul who was basically the greatest evangel of all time described himself as the chief of all sinners. Peter who was praised repeatedly by Jesus himself in the bible had to deal with racism he was showing against people later in his life.
I dont know any christians personally who would agree with what they have done. Maybe they would agree that they have the right to withhold it but not that it was right of them to do so.
It all just stems from ignorance. I think it's sad that people are so afraid of something they will go to any length to justify their hatred of it - even citing divine edict.
I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably.
On January 29 2013 11:53 HumpingHydra wrote: Teamliquid is an great site. I like that these topics can be discussed with some success here. Its a good thing.
Heres one of my trains of thought: What is the main force behind the stance that homosexuality is ok? If its a do whatever makes you happy but doesn't harm society idea.... Whats wrong with beastiality? It wont harm anybody? (cept some diseases theoretically) yet many many people who state homosexuality is fine would say that beastiality is wrong.
Where do people without a belief set (religious or otherwise) decide what is right/wrong, what should be tolerated/intolerated get their understanding from?
A Christian follows and agrees with the principles that are taught from a power higher than them.
How do most atheists decide what is acceptable and what is not?
I hope this post is not taken the wrong way. I lack a full understanding of atheist viewpoints.
Atheists use philosophy (reason and logic) to find out morality among other things. Though being an atheist doesn't make you moral or immoral, it's simply the unbelief in a particular religion. The religious morality is actually quite relativistic, handed down to them by personally chosen (or by human authority) revelations. Lastly, the thought that homosexuality is ok doesn't mean you believe to do whatever makes you happy. In other words, the latter idea is not necessary for the former. There simply is no reason to believe that homosexuality is wrong. (NOTE: I said reason, not revelation). In reply, I ask you this: what is the main force behind the stance that homosexuality is wrong? You will find only hatred, irrationality, or self appointed human authority in this pursuit.
Any christian who has been lead to christianity through his own experiences will pretty much agree with everything youve said. The bible is pretty clear that none of us are perfect. Paul who was basically the greatest evangel of all time described himself as the chief of all sinners. Peter who was praised repeatedly by Jesus himself in the bible had to deal with racism he was showing against people later in his life.
I dont know any christians personally who would agree with what they have done. Maybe they would agree that they have the right to withhold it but not that it was right of them to do so.
This. It's upsetting that people feel the need to distance themselves from what is honestly a really interesting and fulfilling way of life because of a few zealots using it for such onerous bigotry.
The Boy Scouts teaches its values like any other club. Is the argument that they discriminate? MENSA discriminates against low-IQ individuals. Hispanic Scholarship Fund discriminates against those who are not Hispanic. I don't hear anyone crying about the exclusivity of these or similar organizations. I don't think the band-wagon 'get with the program' approach ("get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity") is going to change their minds about the importance of instilling their tried-and-true values into their members. Well, that's my point of view at least.
On January 29 2013 12:25 Arghmyliver wrote: It all just stems from ignorance. I think it's sad that people are so afraid of something they will go to any length to justify their hatred of it - even citing divine edict.
I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably.
: (
I don't think a low view of homosexuality is "ignorant." People who choose to withhold their support of it may acknowledge that it is uniquely abhorrent in the fact that it has no purpose in producing offspring, which is the biological and anatomical purpose of the sex organs, and as far as sex it only satisfies lust. People may also recognize that homosexuals (specifically men) have to undergo extreme rigor in the safety of their sex because they are more likely to produce stds. Some of those people happen to be Christians, yes, and the Bible does indeed cite two places where homosexuality is explicitly condemned, but in the New Testament it does not offer any leeway to hate. I can't speak for other religions.
Then, of course there are just hateful bigots and you may be more correct in stating that they are ignorant. Nevertheless, just because someone does not support all the values that you may or may not believe in does not make them ignorant.
On January 29 2013 11:53 HumpingHydra wrote: Teamliquid is an great site. I like that these topics can be discussed with some success here. Its a good thing.
Heres one of my trains of thought: What is the main force behind the stance that homosexuality is ok? If its a do whatever makes you happy but doesn't harm society idea.... Whats wrong with beastiality? It wont harm anybody? (cept some diseases theoretically) yet many many people who state homosexuality is fine would say that beastiality is wrong.
Where do people without a belief set (religious or otherwise) decide what is right/wrong, what should be tolerated/intolerated get their understanding from?
A Christian follows and agrees with the principles that are taught from a power higher than them.
How do most atheists decide what is acceptable and what is not?
I hope this post is not taken the wrong way. I lack a full understanding of atheist viewpoints.
Teamliquid is hardly a great discussion site. The moderators here have a very specific world view (atheist, socialist, socially liberal, etc.) and any ideas outside that are either mocked or infracted or banned.
Which is perfectly fine of course, these are private forums and the people who run them can choose to have them be nothing more than an echo chamber if that's what they want.
If you can find a SINGLE example of "any ideas outside that are either mocked or infracted or banned." by a moderator then I'll eat my hat. Ideas that are straight up wrong are "mocked" by TL posters because they are straight up wrong and intelligent posters have the same right to share their opinions as the ones who present hateful backward beliefs as their own.
On January 29 2013 11:53 HumpingHydra wrote: Teamliquid is an great site. I like that these topics can be discussed with some success here. Its a good thing.
Heres one of my trains of thought: What is the main force behind the stance that homosexuality is ok? If its a do whatever makes you happy but doesn't harm society idea.... Whats wrong with beastiality? It wont harm anybody? (cept some diseases theoretically) yet many many people who state homosexuality is fine would say that beastiality is wrong.
Where do people without a belief set (religious or otherwise) decide what is right/wrong, what should be tolerated/intolerated get their understanding from?
A Christian follows and agrees with the principles that are taught from a power higher than them.
How do most atheists decide what is acceptable and what is not?
I hope this post is not taken the wrong way. I lack a full understanding of atheist viewpoints.
Teamliquid is hardly a great discussion site. The moderators here have a very specific world view (atheist, socialist, socially liberal, etc.) and any ideas outside that are either mocked or infracted or banned.
Which is perfectly fine of course, these are private forums and the people who run them can choose to have them be nothing more than an echo chamber if that's what they want.
User was temp banned for this post.
Someone hasn't read the US elections thread
Only things that are banned for are conspiracy theories, undeniable falsehoods, image macros, slander, balance whine, etc.
On January 29 2013 11:53 HumpingHydra wrote: Teamliquid is an great site. I like that these topics can be discussed with some success here. Its a good thing.
Heres one of my trains of thought: What is the main force behind the stance that homosexuality is ok? If its a do whatever makes you happy but doesn't harm society idea.... Whats wrong with beastiality? It wont harm anybody? (cept some diseases theoretically) yet many many people who state homosexuality is fine would say that beastiality is wrong.
Where do people without a belief set (religious or otherwise) decide what is right/wrong, what should be tolerated/intolerated get their understanding from?
A Christian follows and agrees with the principles that are taught from a power higher than them.
How do most atheists decide what is acceptable and what is not?
I hope this post is not taken the wrong way. I lack a full understanding of atheist viewpoints.
Teamliquid is hardly a great discussion site. The moderators here have a very specific world view (atheist, socialist, socially liberal, etc.) and any ideas outside that are either mocked or infracted or banned.
Which is perfectly fine of course, these are private forums and the people who run them can choose to have them be nothing more than an echo chamber if that's what they want.
You haven't been in the right threads. There's a fairly wide spectrum of political and religious backgrounds on this forum. I've even seen pro-nazi posters last a fair while until they started personally attacking other posters. The main problem is that there aren't many conservative posters, and probably fewer hardcore christian posters. Why? Because there aren't many of them to begin with (internet site aimed at the educated middle class). Because moderators have to weed out the newest generations of OBAMA IS THE ANTICHRIST posters. Because moderators have to weed out the "THE BIBLE SAYS THIS AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD EVEN THOUGH I DON'T EXPRESS THE VALUE OF MY STRONG BELIEF" posters. Because moderators have to ban people who spend less time thinking than they do clicking the post button. Shit posting is shit posting
On January 29 2013 12:25 Arghmyliver wrote: It all just stems from ignorance. I think it's sad that people are so afraid of something they will go to any length to justify their hatred of it - even citing divine edict.
I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably.
: (
I don't think a low view of homosexuality is "ignorant." People who choose to withhold their support of it may acknowledge that it is uniquely abhorrent in the fact that it has no purpose in producing offspring, which is the biological and anatomical purpose of the sex organs, and as far as sex it only satisfies lust. People may also recognize that homosexuals (specifically men) have to undergo extreme rigor in the safety of their sex because they are more likely to produce stds. Some of those people happen to be Christians, yes, and the Bible does indeed cite two places where homosexuality is explicitly condemned, but in the New Testament it does not offer any leeway to hate. I can't speak for other religions.
Then, of course there are just hateful bigots and you may be more correct in stating that they are ignorant. Nevertheless, just because someone does not support all the values that you may or may not believe in does not make them ignorant.
For these arguments to be consistent then they must also be applied to infertile people or people who use birth control. It would be very hard to make a case that a group was homophobic if they denied access to anyone who engaged in non procreative sex. But when you say it's about procreation but only pick the subgroup of people having non procreative sex who are gays to discriminate against then it's clear that it's actually another criteria being used.
I think it's a bit dehumanizing to wildly paint people who discourage the homosexual lifestyle (majority of the world, all of history I'm pretty sure) as "bigots", "ignorant", people who somehow "fear" homosexuals, and especially "hateful". These just aren't accurate. The vast majority of people don't go out of their way to condemn homosexuals as terrible people. They simply believe in the man-and-wife, white picket fence, bring-home-the-bacon kind of lifestyle and I don't think that's to be frowned upon.
On January 29 2013 12:42 FeelingTookish wrote: I think it's a bit dehumanizing to wildly paint people who discourage the homosexual lifestyle (majority of the world, all of history I'm pretty sure) as "bigots", "ignorant", people who somehow "fear" homosexuals, and especially "hateful". These just aren't accurate. The vast majority of people don't go out of their way to condemn homosexuals as terrible people. They simply believe in the man-and-wife, white picket fence, bring-home-the-bacon kind of lifestyle and I don't think that's to be frowned upon.
One man, one woman, add misogyny. Got it. I mean, I don't hate christians. I don't actively condemn them as terrible people (because I stay away from them whenever I can). I just try to make sure that they can't get married or raise children.
On January 29 2013 12:25 Arghmyliver wrote: It all just stems from ignorance. I think it's sad that people are so afraid of something they will go to any length to justify their hatred of it - even citing divine edict.
I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably.
: (
I don't think a low view of homosexuality is "ignorant." People who choose to withhold their support of it may acknowledge that it is uniquely abhorrent in the fact that it has no purpose in producing offspring, which is the biological and anatomical purpose of the sex organs, and as far as sex it only satisfies lust. People may also recognize that homosexuals (specifically men) have to undergo extreme rigor in the safety of their sex because they are more likely to produce stds. Some of those people happen to be Christians, yes, and the Bible does indeed cite two places where homosexuality is explicitly condemned, but in the New Testament it does not offer any leeway to hate. I can't speak for other religions.
Then, of course there are just hateful bigots and you may be more correct in stating that they are ignorant. Nevertheless, just because someone does not support all the values that you may or may not believe in does not make them ignorant.
For these arguments to be consistent then they must also be applied to infertile people or people who use birth control. It would be very hard to make a case that a group was homophobic if they denied access to anyone who engaged in non procreative sex. But when you say it's about procreation but only pick the subgroup of people having non procreative sex who are gays to discriminate against then it's clear that it's actually another criteria being used.
Well, I'm only speaking about homosexuals here, and was giving informed evidence of why people don't like it to illustrate that it isn't solely ignorant people who don't support homosexuality. Regarding the infertile people, that doesn't really apply here because it isn't by choice. The example of people on birth control is a better parallel and we could debate on the morality of whether or not men with girlfriends on birth control should be allowed into the BSA (when I was in it I believe we were expected to not be having sex unless we were married...to a female), but there are also other reasons why a woman might take birth control other than just because she is sexually active. I'm not 100% sure what it is, but I have a friend who is frequently sick and the medicine she is on for her illness is something like $500 before insurance and even after insurance it is cheaper for her to pay for birth control out of pocket and the birth control apparently works at least as well for her as the prescription drugs.
On January 29 2013 12:42 FeelingTookish wrote: I think it's a bit dehumanizing to wildly paint people who discourage the homosexual lifestyle (majority of the world, all of history I'm pretty sure) as "bigots", "ignorant", people who somehow "fear" homosexuals, and especially "hateful". These just aren't accurate. The vast majority of people don't go out of their way to condemn homosexuals as terrible people. They simply believe in the man-and-wife, white picket fence, bring-home-the-bacon kind of lifestyle and I don't think that's to be frowned upon.
The problem for me personally though is I have no idea why someone would think its better to be straight or to be gay. Like, how could someone think that one way of life is superior for someone else. I can understand if they are looking at their situation and are like, yo it would be way easier this way. But if the person with the controversial life enjoys living his life that way, then why would anyone else care?
I think thats how it is for most people. Unfortunately, i think people are assuming that the only way for someone to think someone else should live their life differently is because of religion. I dont know if thats true or not, but i know that not all religious people tell others to live their lives certain ways.
On January 29 2013 12:25 Arghmyliver wrote: It all just stems from ignorance. I think it's sad that people are so afraid of something they will go to any length to justify their hatred of it - even citing divine edict.
I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably.
: (
I don't think a low view of homosexuality is "ignorant." People who choose to withhold their support of it may acknowledge that it is uniquely abhorrent in the fact that it has no purpose in producing offspring, which is the biological and anatomical purpose of the sex organs, and as far as sex it only satisfies lust. People may also recognize that homosexuals (specifically men) have to undergo extreme rigor in the safety of their sex because they are more likely to produce stds. Some of those people happen to be Christians, yes, and the Bible does indeed cite two places where homosexuality is explicitly condemned, but in the New Testament it does not offer any leeway to hate. I can't speak for other religions.
Then, of course there are just hateful bigots and you may be more correct in stating that they are ignorant. Nevertheless, just because someone does not support all the values that you may or may not believe in does not make them ignorant.
For these arguments to be consistent then they must also be applied to infertile people or people who use birth control. It would be very hard to make a case that a group was homophobic if they denied access to anyone who engaged in non procreative sex. But when you say it's about procreation but only pick the subgroup of people having non procreative sex who are gays to discriminate against then it's clear that it's actually another criteria being used.
Well, I'm only speaking about homosexuals here, and was giving informed evidence of why people don't like it to illustrate that it isn't solely ignorant people who don't support homosexuality. Regarding the infertile people, that doesn't really apply here because it isn't by choice. The example of people on birth control is a better parallel and we could debate on the morality of whether or not men with girlfriends on birth control should be allowed into the BSA (when I was in it I believe we were expected to not be having sex unless we were married...to a female), but there are also other reasons why a woman might take birth control other than just because she is sexually active. I'm not 100% sure what it is, but I have a friend who is frequently sick and the medicine she is on for her illness is something like $500 before insurance and even after insurance it is cheaper for her to pay for birth control out of pocket and the birth control apparently works at least as well for her as the prescription drugs.
Are there any cases of anyone being kicked out of the BSA for having protected sex (condom, blow job, hand job) with their girlfriend? Because if not then the "non procreative sex is lustful and immoral" argument would seem to only apply to gays. This is the problem with these arguments. Gays are, in pretty much every respect, much like everyone else.
The group is chartered by the US government so they can make these decisions. Nothing in this forum is going to change their ideals. I'm an eagle scout and religious and just because a group doesn't follow what you believe what you think doesn't make them backwards. And its hypocritical to hate people who are religious the same way some religious people hate atheists and gays. their both delusional and bigots.
On January 29 2013 12:42 FeelingTookish wrote: I think it's a bit dehumanizing to wildly paint people who discourage the homosexual lifestyle (majority of the world, all of history I'm pretty sure) as "bigots", "ignorant", people who somehow "fear" homosexuals, and especially "hateful". These just aren't accurate. The vast majority of people don't go out of their way to condemn homosexuals as terrible people. They simply believe in the man-and-wife, white picket fence, bring-home-the-bacon kind of lifestyle and I don't think that's to be frowned upon.
One man, one woman, add misogyny. Got it. I mean, I don't hate christians. I don't actively condemn them as terrible people (because I stay away from them whenever I can). I just try to make sure that they can't get married or raise children.
I'm not sure belief in traditional gender roles implies misogyny any more than it implies misandry. I think both sexes should be encouraged to use the strengths biologically given to them. And you brought up child-rearing, so I'll pitch this: It's hard to argue that one mother and one father is not demonstrably the ideal situation for a child, however much you may cite the divorce rate, etc.
People may also recognize that homosexuals (specifically men) have to undergo extreme rigor in the safety of their sex because they are more likely to produce stds.
Gently, this is one of those examples of subtle homophobia. As far as I am aware, there is no more likelihood of any given sex act amongst homosexuals propagating STDs (specifically aids) than heterosexual sex. Spread of STDs is more a function of sexual habits (eg lack of condom use due to the thought that they are primarily pointless contraceptives rather than STD barriers) and I would guess a slightly higher degree of promiscuity.
Gay men are no more likely to spread STDs than straight men in an isolated non-iterative context. This is precisely the mistake that most -isms make, to judge individuals based on group trends.
As early as next week, the Boy Scouts of America may announce it will allow gay Scouts and troop leaders, a spokesman for the group has told USA TODAY.
If this policy shift is approved by the national board meeting next week, it will be a sharp reversal of the Scouts' decades-old national policy banning homosexuals.
On January 29 2013 12:25 Arghmyliver wrote: It all just stems from ignorance. I think it's sad that people are so afraid of something they will go to any length to justify their hatred of it - even citing divine edict.
I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably.
: (
I don't think a low view of homosexuality is "ignorant." People who choose to withhold their support of it may acknowledge that it is uniquely abhorrent in the fact that it has no purpose in producing offspring, which is the biological and anatomical purpose of the sex organs, and as far as sex it only satisfies lust. People may also recognize that homosexuals (specifically men) have to undergo extreme rigor in the safety of their sex because they are more likely to produce stds. Some of those people happen to be Christians, yes, and the Bible does indeed cite two places where homosexuality is explicitly condemned, but in the New Testament it does not offer any leeway to hate. I can't speak for other religions.
Then, of course there are just hateful bigots and you may be more correct in stating that they are ignorant. Nevertheless, just because someone does not support all the values that you may or may not believe in does not make them ignorant.
For these arguments to be consistent then they must also be applied to infertile people or people who use birth control. It would be very hard to make a case that a group was homophobic if they denied access to anyone who engaged in non procreative sex. But when you say it's about procreation but only pick the subgroup of people having non procreative sex who are gays to discriminate against then it's clear that it's actually another criteria being used.
Well, I'm only speaking about homosexuals here, and was giving informed evidence of why people don't like it to illustrate that it isn't solely ignorant people who don't support homosexuality. Regarding the infertile people, that doesn't really apply here because it isn't by choice. The example of people on birth control is a better parallel and we could debate on the morality of whether or not men with girlfriends on birth control should be allowed into the BSA (when I was in it I believe we were expected to not be having sex unless we were married...to a female), but there are also other reasons why a woman might take birth control other than just because she is sexually active. I'm not 100% sure what it is, but I have a friend who is frequently sick and the medicine she is on for her illness is something like $500 before insurance and even after insurance it is cheaper for her to pay for birth control out of pocket and the birth control apparently works at least as well for her as the prescription drugs.
Birth control is the hype word people use for estrogen tablets. A huge percentage of women use birth control to regulate their hormonal balance so they aren't monsters on their period. As to the number of people concerned with the propagation of the human race? Seriously, no, that's not an argument you can make and expect to be taken seriously.
Seven billion people stand silent. Waiting, motionless. The radio crackles for a moment. The television screens flicker. Heads crowd closer on six different continents, bristling in anticipation. ITTTTT'S THOMAS MALTHUS EVERYONE!!!
Seriously, nobody gives two shits about overpopulation (an issue which is one of humanity's greatest problems of the future). You're suggesting that people are concerned about underpopulation, even in light of humanity's growth rate. This is absurd. This does not give value to an intrinsic dislike of homosexuality.
On January 29 2013 12:42 FeelingTookish wrote: I think it's a bit dehumanizing to wildly paint people who discourage the homosexual lifestyle (majority of the world, all of history I'm pretty sure) as "bigots", "ignorant", people who somehow "fear" homosexuals, and especially "hateful". These just aren't accurate. The vast majority of people don't go out of their way to condemn homosexuals as terrible people. They simply believe in the man-and-wife, white picket fence, bring-home-the-bacon kind of lifestyle and I don't think that's to be frowned upon.
One man, one woman, add misogyny. Got it. I mean, I don't hate christians. I don't actively condemn them as terrible people (because I stay away from them whenever I can). I just try to make sure that they can't get married or raise children.
I'm not sure belief in traditional gender roles implies misogyny any more than it implies misandry. I think both sexes should be encouraged to use the strengths biologically given to them. And you brought up child-rearing, so I'll pitch this: It's hard to argue that one mother and one father is demonstrably the ideal situation for a child, however much you may cite the divorce rate, etc.
When and where were these gender roles traditional, and what were they? What strengths are biologically given to men to make them more able to "bring-home-the-bacon"? Enlighten me!
On January 29 2013 12:25 Arghmyliver wrote: It all just stems from ignorance. I think it's sad that people are so afraid of something they will go to any length to justify their hatred of it - even citing divine edict.
I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably.
: (
I don't think a low view of homosexuality is "ignorant." People who choose to withhold their support of it may acknowledge that it is uniquely abhorrent in the fact that it has no purpose in producing offspring, which is the biological and anatomical purpose of the sex organs, and as far as sex it only satisfies lust. People may also recognize that homosexuals (specifically men) have to undergo extreme rigor in the safety of their sex because they are more likely to produce stds. Some of those people happen to be Christians, yes, and the Bible does indeed cite two places where homosexuality is explicitly condemned, but in the New Testament it does not offer any leeway to hate. I can't speak for other religions.
Then, of course there are just hateful bigots and you may be more correct in stating that they are ignorant. Nevertheless, just because someone does not support all the values that you may or may not believe in does not make them ignorant.
For these arguments to be consistent then they must also be applied to infertile people or people who use birth control. It would be very hard to make a case that a group was homophobic if they denied access to anyone who engaged in non procreative sex. But when you say it's about procreation but only pick the subgroup of people having non procreative sex who are gays to discriminate against then it's clear that it's actually another criteria being used.
Well, I'm only speaking about homosexuals here, and was giving informed evidence of why people don't like it to illustrate that it isn't solely ignorant people who don't support homosexuality. Regarding the infertile people, that doesn't really apply here because it isn't by choice. The example of people on birth control is a better parallel and we could debate on the morality of whether or not men with girlfriends on birth control should be allowed into the BSA (when I was in it I believe we were expected to not be having sex unless we were married...to a female), but there are also other reasons why a woman might take birth control other than just because she is sexually active. I'm not 100% sure what it is, but I have a friend who is frequently sick and the medicine she is on for her illness is something like $500 before insurance and even after insurance it is cheaper for her to pay for birth control out of pocket and the birth control apparently works at least as well for her as the prescription drugs.
Are there any cases of anyone being kicked out of the BSA for having protected sex (condom, blow job, hand job) with their girlfriend? Because if not then the "non procreative sex is lustful and immoral" argument would seem to only apply to gays. This is the problem with these arguments. Gays are, in pretty much every respect, much like everyone else.
Firstly, I didn't argue that non-protected sex is lust. I said that it seems to me that the only purpose of homosexual sex is to gratify the sexual desires found in everyone: i.e. lust. That said, I'm not a BSA historian so I don't know for a fact, but I would venture to guess that there have been people kicked out for all of the reasons you listed. Essentially though, what it comes down to with the BSA is that they have a right to make their own rules, and whatever logic or rhetoric you use to convince them that their arguments are fallible (if they even argue from a logical perspective) won't matter. They are legally entitled to their beliefs, as are you, and that is that. My only purpose in posting on this thread was to demonstrate that not everyone who opposes the homosexual movement/agenda or whathaveyou are ignorant or backwards as some in this thread have suggested.
On January 29 2013 12:25 Arghmyliver wrote: It all just stems from ignorance. I think it's sad that people are so afraid of something they will go to any length to justify their hatred of it - even citing divine edict.
I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably.
: (
I don't think a low view of homosexuality is "ignorant." People who choose to withhold their support of it may acknowledge that it is uniquely abhorrent in the fact that it has no purpose in producing offspring, which is the biological and anatomical purpose of the sex organs, and as far as sex it only satisfies lust. People may also recognize that homosexuals (specifically men) have to undergo extreme rigor in the safety of their sex because they are more likely to produce stds. Some of those people happen to be Christians, yes, and the Bible does indeed cite two places where homosexuality is explicitly condemned, but in the New Testament it does not offer any leeway to hate. I can't speak for other religions.
Then, of course there are just hateful bigots and you may be more correct in stating that they are ignorant. Nevertheless, just because someone does not support all the values that you may or may not believe in does not make them ignorant.
For these arguments to be consistent then they must also be applied to infertile people or people who use birth control. It would be very hard to make a case that a group was homophobic if they denied access to anyone who engaged in non procreative sex. But when you say it's about procreation but only pick the subgroup of people having non procreative sex who are gays to discriminate against then it's clear that it's actually another criteria being used.
Well, I'm only speaking about homosexuals here, and was giving informed evidence of why people don't like it to illustrate that it isn't solely ignorant people who don't support homosexuality. Regarding the infertile people, that doesn't really apply here because it isn't by choice. The example of people on birth control is a better parallel and we could debate on the morality of whether or not men with girlfriends on birth control should be allowed into the BSA (when I was in it I believe we were expected to not be having sex unless we were married...to a female), but there are also other reasons why a woman might take birth control other than just because she is sexually active. I'm not 100% sure what it is, but I have a friend who is frequently sick and the medicine she is on for her illness is something like $500 before insurance and even after insurance it is cheaper for her to pay for birth control out of pocket and the birth control apparently works at least as well for her as the prescription drugs.
Birth control is the hype word people use for estrogen tablets. A huge percentage of women use birth control to regulate their hormonal balance so they aren't monsters on their period. As to the number of people concerned with the propagation of the human race? Seriously, no, that's not an argument you can make and expect to be taken seriously.
Seven billion people stand silent. Waiting, motionless. The radio crackles for a moment. The television screens flicker. Heads crowd closer on six different continents, bristling in anticipation. ITTTTT'S THOMAS MALTHUS EVERYONE!!!
Seriously, nobody gives two shits about overpopulation (an issue which is one of humanity's greatest problems of the future). You're suggesting that people are concerned about underpopulation, even in light of humanity's growth rate. This is absurd. This does not give value to an intrinsic dislike of homosexuality.
Um...I'm not talking about overpopulation at all. I'm discussing whether or not it is permissible to exclude a homosexual from the BSA with Kwark. Please take the time to read the spoilered posts fully so that you know what you're responding to.
On January 29 2013 13:07 KwarK wrote: You missed the point. It's not about underpopulation, it's about giving every sperm a shot at becoming a person. God hates wasted sperm.
Ok, so we've got 2 verses out of several thousand. Christanity vs Homosexuality: The 0.1%
On January 29 2013 12:42 FeelingTookish wrote: I think it's a bit dehumanizing to wildly paint people who discourage the homosexual lifestyle (majority of the world, all of history I'm pretty sure) as "bigots", "ignorant", people who somehow "fear" homosexuals, and especially "hateful". These just aren't accurate. The vast majority of people don't go out of their way to condemn homosexuals as terrible people. They simply believe in the man-and-wife, white picket fence, bring-home-the-bacon kind of lifestyle and I don't think that's to be frowned upon.
One man, one woman, add misogyny. Got it. I mean, I don't hate christians. I don't actively condemn them as terrible people (because I stay away from them whenever I can). I just try to make sure that they can't get married or raise children.
I'm not sure belief in traditional gender roles implies misogyny any more than it implies misandry. I think both sexes should be encouraged to use the strengths biologically given to them. And you brought up child-rearing, so I'll pitch this: It's hard to argue that one mother and one father is demonstrably the ideal situation for a child, however much you may cite the divorce rate, etc.
Traditional is used as a code word for "back how it was before they had rights". If society had previously been matriarchal then people harping on about traditional values would probably be misandrists and I'd feel quite threatened about them pining for the days when they didn't have jobs and men were expected to work long days to earn an income for the family unit. But it wasn't, it was a society in which education, employment and freedoms were severely limited to women who were socially condemned and ostracized for attempting to enjoy the freedoms men took for granted. So, yes, traditional gender roles are misogynistic. Now, if a woman wants that lifestyle she can choose it and that's absolutely fine but suggesting the enforcement of any kind of gender role is infringing upon freedoms and the specific roles implied by "traditional" is massively sexist.
On January 29 2013 12:25 Arghmyliver wrote: It all just stems from ignorance. I think it's sad that people are so afraid of something they will go to any length to justify their hatred of it - even citing divine edict.
I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably.
: (
I don't think a low view of homosexuality is "ignorant." People who choose to withhold their support of it may acknowledge that it is uniquely abhorrent in the fact that it has no purpose in producing offspring, which is the biological and anatomical purpose of the sex organs, and as far as sex it only satisfies lust. People may also recognize that homosexuals (specifically men) have to undergo extreme rigor in the safety of their sex because they are more likely to produce stds. Some of those people happen to be Christians, yes, and the Bible does indeed cite two places where homosexuality is explicitly condemned, but in the New Testament it does not offer any leeway to hate. I can't speak for other religions.
Then, of course there are just hateful bigots and you may be more correct in stating that they are ignorant. Nevertheless, just because someone does not support all the values that you may or may not believe in does not make them ignorant.
For these arguments to be consistent then they must also be applied to infertile people or people who use birth control. It would be very hard to make a case that a group was homophobic if they denied access to anyone who engaged in non procreative sex. But when you say it's about procreation but only pick the subgroup of people having non procreative sex who are gays to discriminate against then it's clear that it's actually another criteria being used.
Well, I'm only speaking about homosexuals here, and was giving informed evidence of why people don't like it to illustrate that it isn't solely ignorant people who don't support homosexuality. Regarding the infertile people, that doesn't really apply here because it isn't by choice. The example of people on birth control is a better parallel and we could debate on the morality of whether or not men with girlfriends on birth control should be allowed into the BSA (when I was in it I believe we were expected to not be having sex unless we were married...to a female), but there are also other reasons why a woman might take birth control other than just because she is sexually active. I'm not 100% sure what it is, but I have a friend who is frequently sick and the medicine she is on for her illness is something like $500 before insurance and even after insurance it is cheaper for her to pay for birth control out of pocket and the birth control apparently works at least as well for her as the prescription drugs.
Are there any cases of anyone being kicked out of the BSA for having protected sex (condom, blow job, hand job) with their girlfriend? Because if not then the "non procreative sex is lustful and immoral" argument would seem to only apply to gays. This is the problem with these arguments. Gays are, in pretty much every respect, much like everyone else.
Firstly, I didn't argue that non-protected sex is lust. I said that it seems to me that the only purpose of homosexual sex is to gratify the sexual desires found in everyone: i.e. lust. That said, I'm not a BSA historian so I don't know for a fact, but I would venture to guess that there have been people kicked out for all of the reasons you listed. Essentially though, what it comes down to with the BSA is that they have a right to make their own rules, and whatever logic or rhetoric you use to convince them that their arguments are fallible (if they even argue from a logical perspective) won't matter. They are legally entitled to their beliefs, as are you, and that is that. My only purpose in posting on this thread was to demonstrate that not everyone who opposes the homosexual movement/agenda or whathaveyou are ignorant or backwards as some in this thread have suggested.
Good, then explain a logical position that denounces homosexuality. You haven't done that yet. We're in no danger of species extinction through underpopulation, so your former position doesn't hold any weight. Furthermore, your position is driven more ludicrous because the looming threat on the horizon is OVERPOPULATION, something homosexuality has a positive effect against.
On January 29 2013 12:42 FeelingTookish wrote: I think it's a bit dehumanizing to wildly paint people who discourage the homosexual lifestyle (majority of the world, all of history I'm pretty sure) as "bigots", "ignorant", people who somehow "fear" homosexuals, and especially "hateful". These just aren't accurate. The vast majority of people don't go out of their way to condemn homosexuals as terrible people. They simply believe in the man-and-wife, white picket fence, bring-home-the-bacon kind of lifestyle and I don't think that's to be frowned upon.
The problem for me personally though is I have no idea why someone would think its better to be straight or to be gay. Like, how could someone think that one way of life is superior for someone else. I can understand if they are looking at their situation and are like, yo it would be way easier this way. But if the person with the controversial life enjoys living his life that way, then why would anyone else care?
I think thats how it is for most people. Unfortunately, i think people are assuming that the only way for someone to think someone else should live their life differently is because of religion. I dont know if thats true or not, but i know that not all religious people tell others to live their lives certain ways.
I personally think it is better to be a heterosexual. I totally recommend it. I think it's great and the best way to live. I also like 80's rock music, dubstep, and computer programming. I naturally want people to enjoy what I enjoy and dislike what I dislike. I discourage people from listening to the Beatles and driving a Prius. I encourage people to admire a Firebird Trans Am. I don't feel ashamed of this. I don't feel like a hateful person. Everyone thinks their own way of life is superior. Think of it like that when you see a white Christian man who'd rather not have homosexuals teaching his children that the way of life they've known is oppressive and backwards and ignorant.
Some perspective can be useful in these discussions.
Consider: Can you legislate morality?
In the past people have believed such, and have tried to do so.
I believe that the government and social institutions should reflect and support the morality of its common cultural voice. This does run into trouble with minority groups, and thus we have movements. Its a tricky issue, and currently a lot of the "cultural voice" of NA has been undergoing a shift in regards to homosexuality.
So, regarding homosexuality, people seem to have the stance these days that it is an assumed right (freedom of sexual relations?) for people to have homosexual relations, and liberals condemn those who resist this concept as being ignorant, hateful, bigots etc etc.
Honestly calling someone a BIGOT because they disagree with your morality and world view is just as petty and useless as any other form of name-calling in an attempt to demonize someone with a different view then yourself.
Person A) "I believe X moral issue is true" Person B) "I believe X moral issue is false" Person A) "Person B is an ignorant, hateful asshole!" Person B) "Productive..."
So, why should homosexuality be allowed, tolerated and embraced by society and individuals; and social organizations such as the Boy Scouts? Well, because it is becoming true that the majority of society feels that they should, but I would like to address the common rationale used by supporters of such a position.
The main point people seem to have regarding such is that of personal and sexual freedom, which is a viewpoint I can appreciate but one that does lead to the point: if you do not believe that sex between two (wo)men is deviant, why is sex with a chicken presuming it is safe? Or with a plant or something. If sexual interactions are considered actions devoid of morality, then by logic this separation of morality should be complete and freedom should be extended to all purposes that do not harm others or are inherently unsafe to society.
Of course some people will find it morally objectionable to have sex with plants, or dead people, and they will condemn those that do until their viewpoint becomes in the minority, and then the reverse will happen. The logical extreme and end result is that more things will be considered acceptable, people will have more individual freedom and society will continue to move away from what was once was considered "wholesome".
On January 29 2013 12:25 Arghmyliver wrote: It all just stems from ignorance. I think it's sad that people are so afraid of something they will go to any length to justify their hatred of it - even citing divine edict.
I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably.
: (
I don't think a low view of homosexuality is "ignorant." People who choose to withhold their support of it may acknowledge that it is uniquely abhorrent in the fact that it has no purpose in producing offspring, which is the biological and anatomical purpose of the sex organs, and as far as sex it only satisfies lust. People may also recognize that homosexuals (specifically men) have to undergo extreme rigor in the safety of their sex because they are more likely to produce stds. Some of those people happen to be Christians, yes, and the Bible does indeed cite two places where homosexuality is explicitly condemned, but in the New Testament it does not offer any leeway to hate. I can't speak for other religions.
Then, of course there are just hateful bigots and you may be more correct in stating that they are ignorant. Nevertheless, just because someone does not support all the values that you may or may not believe in does not make them ignorant.
For these arguments to be consistent then they must also be applied to infertile people or people who use birth control. It would be very hard to make a case that a group was homophobic if they denied access to anyone who engaged in non procreative sex. But when you say it's about procreation but only pick the subgroup of people having non procreative sex who are gays to discriminate against then it's clear that it's actually another criteria being used.
Well, I'm only speaking about homosexuals here, and was giving informed evidence of why people don't like it to illustrate that it isn't solely ignorant people who don't support homosexuality. Regarding the infertile people, that doesn't really apply here because it isn't by choice. The example of people on birth control is a better parallel and we could debate on the morality of whether or not men with girlfriends on birth control should be allowed into the BSA (when I was in it I believe we were expected to not be having sex unless we were married...to a female), but there are also other reasons why a woman might take birth control other than just because she is sexually active. I'm not 100% sure what it is, but I have a friend who is frequently sick and the medicine she is on for her illness is something like $500 before insurance and even after insurance it is cheaper for her to pay for birth control out of pocket and the birth control apparently works at least as well for her as the prescription drugs.
Are there any cases of anyone being kicked out of the BSA for having protected sex (condom, blow job, hand job) with their girlfriend? Because if not then the "non procreative sex is lustful and immoral" argument would seem to only apply to gays. This is the problem with these arguments. Gays are, in pretty much every respect, much like everyone else.
Firstly, I didn't argue that non-protected sex is lust. I said that it seems to me that the only purpose of homosexual sex is to gratify the sexual desires found in everyone: i.e. lust. That said, I'm not a BSA historian so I don't know for a fact, but I would venture to guess that there have been people kicked out for all of the reasons you listed. Essentially though, what it comes down to with the BSA is that they have a right to make their own rules, and whatever logic or rhetoric you use to convince them that their arguments are fallible (if they even argue from a logical perspective) won't matter. They are legally entitled to their beliefs, as are you, and that is that. My only purpose in posting on this thread was to demonstrate that not everyone who opposes the homosexual movement/agenda or whathaveyou are ignorant or backwards as some in this thread have suggested.
You haven't demonstrated that. You have attempted to show that there are objections to homosexual behaviour that aren't just "because they're gay" but your objections do not appear to be consistent with the actions of anyone you suggested might hold them. Imagine if you said "their policy isn't specifically homophobic, they just banned everyone with brown eyes", you would have to show that A) they banned people who weren't gay who had brown eyes and B) they didn't ban people who were gay who didn't have brown eyes. Unfortunately their policy is specifically homophobic.
On January 29 2013 12:25 Arghmyliver wrote: It all just stems from ignorance. I think it's sad that people are so afraid of something they will go to any length to justify their hatred of it - even citing divine edict.
I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably.
: (
I don't think a low view of homosexuality is "ignorant." People who choose to withhold their support of it may acknowledge that it is uniquely abhorrent in the fact that it has no purpose in producing offspring, which is the biological and anatomical purpose of the sex organs, and as far as sex it only satisfies lust. People may also recognize that homosexuals (specifically men) have to undergo extreme rigor in the safety of their sex because they are more likely to produce stds. Some of those people happen to be Christians, yes, and the Bible does indeed cite two places where homosexuality is explicitly condemned, but in the New Testament it does not offer any leeway to hate. I can't speak for other religions.
Then, of course there are just hateful bigots and you may be more correct in stating that they are ignorant. Nevertheless, just because someone does not support all the values that you may or may not believe in does not make them ignorant.
For these arguments to be consistent then they must also be applied to infertile people or people who use birth control. It would be very hard to make a case that a group was homophobic if they denied access to anyone who engaged in non procreative sex. But when you say it's about procreation but only pick the subgroup of people having non procreative sex who are gays to discriminate against then it's clear that it's actually another criteria being used.
Well, I'm only speaking about homosexuals here, and was giving informed evidence of why people don't like it to illustrate that it isn't solely ignorant people who don't support homosexuality. Regarding the infertile people, that doesn't really apply here because it isn't by choice. The example of people on birth control is a better parallel and we could debate on the morality of whether or not men with girlfriends on birth control should be allowed into the BSA (when I was in it I believe we were expected to not be having sex unless we were married...to a female), but there are also other reasons why a woman might take birth control other than just because she is sexually active. I'm not 100% sure what it is, but I have a friend who is frequently sick and the medicine she is on for her illness is something like $500 before insurance and even after insurance it is cheaper for her to pay for birth control out of pocket and the birth control apparently works at least as well for her as the prescription drugs.
Are there any cases of anyone being kicked out of the BSA for having protected sex (condom, blow job, hand job) with their girlfriend? Because if not then the "non procreative sex is lustful and immoral" argument would seem to only apply to gays. This is the problem with these arguments. Gays are, in pretty much every respect, much like everyone else.
Firstly, I didn't argue that non-protected sex is lust. I said that it seems to me that the only purpose of homosexual sex is to gratify the sexual desires found in everyone: i.e. lust. That said, I'm not a BSA historian so I don't know for a fact, but I would venture to guess that there have been people kicked out for all of the reasons you listed. Essentially though, what it comes down to with the BSA is that they have a right to make their own rules, and whatever logic or rhetoric you use to convince them that their arguments are fallible (if they even argue from a logical perspective) won't matter. They are legally entitled to their beliefs, as are you, and that is that. My only purpose in posting on this thread was to demonstrate that not everyone who opposes the homosexual movement/agenda or whathaveyou are ignorant or backwards as some in this thread have suggested.
Good, then explain a logical position that denounces homosexuality. You haven't done that yet. We're in no danger of species extinction through underpopulation, so your former position doesn't hold any weight. Furthermore, your position is driven more ludicrous because the looming threat on the horizon is OVERPOPULATION, something homosexuality has a positive effect against.
Please review the post that you just quoted, as I edited it to respond to your initial post against me, which I had not seen. Additionally, please reread the last sentence of the post that you just quoted. My purpose in this thread is NOT to write a peer-reviewed journal article that will display beyond all power of criticism why homosexuality is immoral, and why we should all take up weapons and burn them at the stake. My purpose IS to demonstrate that I can have informed reasons why I may or may not agree with the homosexual agenda, and that because I may disagree with those who do support it doesn't make me backwards or ignorant.
On January 29 2013 12:42 FeelingTookish wrote: I think it's a bit dehumanizing to wildly paint people who discourage the homosexual lifestyle (majority of the world, all of history I'm pretty sure) as "bigots", "ignorant", people who somehow "fear" homosexuals, and especially "hateful". These just aren't accurate. The vast majority of people don't go out of their way to condemn homosexuals as terrible people. They simply believe in the man-and-wife, white picket fence, bring-home-the-bacon kind of lifestyle and I don't think that's to be frowned upon.
The problem for me personally though is I have no idea why someone would think its better to be straight or to be gay. Like, how could someone think that one way of life is superior for someone else. I can understand if they are looking at their situation and are like, yo it would be way easier this way. But if the person with the controversial life enjoys living his life that way, then why would anyone else care?
I think thats how it is for most people. Unfortunately, i think people are assuming that the only way for someone to think someone else should live their life differently is because of religion. I dont know if thats true or not, but i know that not all religious people tell others to live their lives certain ways.
I personally think it is better to be a heterosexual. I totally recommend it. I think it's great and the best way to live. I also like 80's rock music, dubstep, and computer programming. I naturally want people to enjoy what I enjoy and dislike what I dislike. I discourage people from listening to the Beatles and driving a Prius. I encourage people to admire a Firebird Trans Am. I don't feel ashamed of this. I don't feel like a hateful person. Everyone thinks their own way of life is superior. Think of it like that when you see a white Christian man who'd rather not have homosexuals teaching his children that the way of life they've known is oppressive and backwards and ignorant.
As early as next week, the Boy Scouts of America may announce it will allow gay Scouts and troop leaders, a spokesman for the group has told USA TODAY.
If this policy shift is approved by the national board meeting next week, it will be a sharp reversal of the Scouts' decades-old national policy banning homosexuals.
I expect the "This one time, at boy scouts", quotes to be popping through within a month.
On January 29 2013 12:42 FeelingTookish wrote: I think it's a bit dehumanizing to wildly paint people who discourage the homosexual lifestyle (majority of the world, all of history I'm pretty sure) as "bigots", "ignorant", people who somehow "fear" homosexuals, and especially "hateful". These just aren't accurate. The vast majority of people don't go out of their way to condemn homosexuals as terrible people. They simply believe in the man-and-wife, white picket fence, bring-home-the-bacon kind of lifestyle and I don't think that's to be frowned upon.
The problem for me personally though is I have no idea why someone would think its better to be straight or to be gay. Like, how could someone think that one way of life is superior for someone else. I can understand if they are looking at their situation and are like, yo it would be way easier this way. But if the person with the controversial life enjoys living his life that way, then why would anyone else care?
I think thats how it is for most people. Unfortunately, i think people are assuming that the only way for someone to think someone else should live their life differently is because of religion. I dont know if thats true or not, but i know that not all religious people tell others to live their lives certain ways.
I personally think it is better to be a heterosexual. I totally recommend it. I think it's great and the best way to live. I also like 80's rock music, dubstep, and computer programming. I naturally want people to enjoy what I enjoy and dislike what I dislike. I discourage people from listening to the Beatles and driving a Prius. I encourage people to admire a Firebird Trans Am. I don't feel ashamed of this. I don't feel like a hateful person. Everyone thinks their own way of life is superior. Think of it like that when you see a white Christian man who'd rather not have homosexuals teaching his children that the way of life they've known is oppressive and backwards and ignorant.
I am personally fine with anyone who hates niggers. I just don't believe that our government or any commercial or non-profit entity within it should be allowed to discriminate against someone based upon some man-made classification. It seems a bit petty, to decide what a human being can and cannot do based on the color of their skin or who they legally fuck.
On January 29 2013 12:42 FeelingTookish wrote: I think it's a bit dehumanizing to wildly paint people who discourage the homosexual lifestyle (majority of the world, all of history I'm pretty sure) as "bigots", "ignorant", people who somehow "fear" homosexuals, and especially "hateful". These just aren't accurate. The vast majority of people don't go out of their way to condemn homosexuals as terrible people. They simply believe in the man-and-wife, white picket fence, bring-home-the-bacon kind of lifestyle and I don't think that's to be frowned upon.
The problem for me personally though is I have no idea why someone would think its better to be straight or to be gay. Like, how could someone think that one way of life is superior for someone else. I can understand if they are looking at their situation and are like, yo it would be way easier this way. But if the person with the controversial life enjoys living his life that way, then why would anyone else care?
I think thats how it is for most people. Unfortunately, i think people are assuming that the only way for someone to think someone else should live their life differently is because of religion. I dont know if thats true or not, but i know that not all religious people tell others to live their lives certain ways.
I personally think it is better to be a heterosexual. I totally recommend it. I think it's great and the best way to live. I also like 80's rock music, dubstep, and computer programming. I naturally want people to enjoy what I enjoy and dislike what I dislike. I discourage people from listening to the Beatles and driving a Prius. I encourage people to admire a Firebird Trans Am. I don't feel ashamed of this. I don't feel like a hateful person. Everyone thinks their own way of life is superior. Think of it like that when you see a white Christian man who'd rather not have homosexuals teaching his children that the way of life they've known is oppressive and backwards and ignorant.
I guess i dont feel the same way. I can understand wanting friends who enjoy what i enjoy in order to have interactions based around those things, but i dont think everyone should play starcraft. If i couldnt find friends who played, then i wouldnt try to get people to. I would just find something that people do enjoy that i enjoy also. I actually think the majority of people(atleast on this site) cant relate to that feeling. Or maybe im an exception and everyone else is deceptive.
On January 29 2013 12:25 Arghmyliver wrote: It all just stems from ignorance. I think it's sad that people are so afraid of something they will go to any length to justify their hatred of it - even citing divine edict.
I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably.
: (
I don't think a low view of homosexuality is "ignorant." People who choose to withhold their support of it may acknowledge that it is uniquely abhorrent in the fact that it has no purpose in producing offspring, which is the biological and anatomical purpose of the sex organs, and as far as sex it only satisfies lust. People may also recognize that homosexuals (specifically men) have to undergo extreme rigor in the safety of their sex because they are more likely to produce stds. Some of those people happen to be Christians, yes, and the Bible does indeed cite two places where homosexuality is explicitly condemned, but in the New Testament it does not offer any leeway to hate. I can't speak for other religions.
Then, of course there are just hateful bigots and you may be more correct in stating that they are ignorant. Nevertheless, just because someone does not support all the values that you may or may not believe in does not make them ignorant.
For these arguments to be consistent then they must also be applied to infertile people or people who use birth control. It would be very hard to make a case that a group was homophobic if they denied access to anyone who engaged in non procreative sex. But when you say it's about procreation but only pick the subgroup of people having non procreative sex who are gays to discriminate against then it's clear that it's actually another criteria being used.
Well, I'm only speaking about homosexuals here, and was giving informed evidence of why people don't like it to illustrate that it isn't solely ignorant people who don't support homosexuality. Regarding the infertile people, that doesn't really apply here because it isn't by choice. The example of people on birth control is a better parallel and we could debate on the morality of whether or not men with girlfriends on birth control should be allowed into the BSA (when I was in it I believe we were expected to not be having sex unless we were married...to a female), but there are also other reasons why a woman might take birth control other than just because she is sexually active. I'm not 100% sure what it is, but I have a friend who is frequently sick and the medicine she is on for her illness is something like $500 before insurance and even after insurance it is cheaper for her to pay for birth control out of pocket and the birth control apparently works at least as well for her as the prescription drugs.
Are there any cases of anyone being kicked out of the BSA for having protected sex (condom, blow job, hand job) with their girlfriend? Because if not then the "non procreative sex is lustful and immoral" argument would seem to only apply to gays. This is the problem with these arguments. Gays are, in pretty much every respect, much like everyone else.
Firstly, I didn't argue that non-protected sex is lust. I said that it seems to me that the only purpose of homosexual sex is to gratify the sexual desires found in everyone: i.e. lust. That said, I'm not a BSA historian so I don't know for a fact, but I would venture to guess that there have been people kicked out for all of the reasons you listed. Essentially though, what it comes down to with the BSA is that they have a right to make their own rules, and whatever logic or rhetoric you use to convince them that their arguments are fallible (if they even argue from a logical perspective) won't matter. They are legally entitled to their beliefs, as are you, and that is that. My only purpose in posting on this thread was to demonstrate that not everyone who opposes the homosexual movement/agenda or whathaveyou are ignorant or backwards as some in this thread have suggested.
You haven't demonstrated that. You have attempted to show that there are objections to homosexual behaviour that aren't just "because they're gay" but your objections do not appear to be consistent with the actions of anyone you suggested might hold them. Imagine if you said "their policy isn't specifically homophobic, they just banned everyone with brown eyes", you would have to show that A) they banned people who weren't gay who had brown eyes and B) they didn't ban people who were gay who didn't have brown eyes. Unfortunately their policy is specifically homophobic.
I see. With my objections, I wasn't trying to defend the BSA. I was more or less defending the people who others in this thread have referred to as 'backward' simply because they disagree with the other people's stance. More specifically, I was attempting a rebuttle to the person I quoted in my OP who said the entire problem stemmed from ignorance.
Regarding the BSA, it doesn't matter if they have a logical position or not. The are a private group that does not have to allow everyone, and the people they do allow represent them. If they don't want gays to represent them, there is no reason why they should have to. We may disagree on whether or not that is 'right,' but it is a fact. In another situation, I wouldn't want a GMO company representing me as an organic growth advocate. They may not be pure evil, but their cause still does not line up with mine and they shouldn't represent me on account of that.
On January 29 2013 12:25 Arghmyliver wrote: It all just stems from ignorance. I think it's sad that people are so afraid of something they will go to any length to justify their hatred of it - even citing divine edict.
I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably.
: (
I don't think a low view of homosexuality is "ignorant." People who choose to withhold their support of it may acknowledge that it is uniquely abhorrent in the fact that it has no purpose in producing offspring, which is the biological and anatomical purpose of the sex organs, and as far as sex it only satisfies lust. People may also recognize that homosexuals (specifically men) have to undergo extreme rigor in the safety of their sex because they are more likely to produce stds. Some of those people happen to be Christians, yes, and the Bible does indeed cite two places where homosexuality is explicitly condemned, but in the New Testament it does not offer any leeway to hate. I can't speak for other religions.
Then, of course there are just hateful bigots and you may be more correct in stating that they are ignorant. Nevertheless, just because someone does not support all the values that you may or may not believe in does not make them ignorant.
For these arguments to be consistent then they must also be applied to infertile people or people who use birth control. It would be very hard to make a case that a group was homophobic if they denied access to anyone who engaged in non procreative sex. But when you say it's about procreation but only pick the subgroup of people having non procreative sex who are gays to discriminate against then it's clear that it's actually another criteria being used.
Well, I'm only speaking about homosexuals here, and was giving informed evidence of why people don't like it to illustrate that it isn't solely ignorant people who don't support homosexuality. Regarding the infertile people, that doesn't really apply here because it isn't by choice. The example of people on birth control is a better parallel and we could debate on the morality of whether or not men with girlfriends on birth control should be allowed into the BSA (when I was in it I believe we were expected to not be having sex unless we were married...to a female), but there are also other reasons why a woman might take birth control other than just because she is sexually active. I'm not 100% sure what it is, but I have a friend who is frequently sick and the medicine she is on for her illness is something like $500 before insurance and even after insurance it is cheaper for her to pay for birth control out of pocket and the birth control apparently works at least as well for her as the prescription drugs.
Are there any cases of anyone being kicked out of the BSA for having protected sex (condom, blow job, hand job) with their girlfriend? Because if not then the "non procreative sex is lustful and immoral" argument would seem to only apply to gays. This is the problem with these arguments. Gays are, in pretty much every respect, much like everyone else.
Firstly, I didn't argue that non-protected sex is lust. I said that it seems to me that the only purpose of homosexual sex is to gratify the sexual desires found in everyone: i.e. lust. That said, I'm not a BSA historian so I don't know for a fact, but I would venture to guess that there have been people kicked out for all of the reasons you listed. Essentially though, what it comes down to with the BSA is that they have a right to make their own rules, and whatever logic or rhetoric you use to convince them that their arguments are fallible (if they even argue from a logical perspective) won't matter. They are legally entitled to their beliefs, as are you, and that is that. My only purpose in posting on this thread was to demonstrate that not everyone who opposes the homosexual movement/agenda or whathaveyou are ignorant or backwards as some in this thread have suggested.
Good, then explain a logical position that denounces homosexuality. You haven't done that yet. We're in no danger of species extinction through underpopulation, so your former position doesn't hold any weight. Furthermore, your position is driven more ludicrous because the looming threat on the horizon is OVERPOPULATION, something homosexuality has a positive effect against.
Please review the post that you just quoted, as I edited it to respond to your initial post against me, which I had not seen. Additionally, please reread the last sentence of the post that you just quoted. My purpose in this thread is NOT to write a peer-reviewed journal article that will display beyond all power of criticism why homosexuality is immoral, and why we should all take up weapons and burn them at the stake. My purpose IS to demonstrate that I can have informed reasons why I may or may not agree with the homosexual agenda, and that because I may disagree with those who do support it doesn't make me backwards or ignorant.
THEN DO THAT! Make a logical, reasonable case for people are vehemently anti-gay! You're the only one in your way, so get to it!. You made a claim. Your claim was that people are against gay people because they can't reproduce. First off, this is false. A gay man can have his sperm implanted in a surrogate mother. A lesbian woman can have her sperm fertilized externally by a third party and implanted in herself or a surrogate. Second of all, this argument does not reflect the sincere viewpoint of even 1% of the group you are trying to defend. This might be because of the above two points which make this argument kind of pointless.
On January 29 2013 12:42 FeelingTookish wrote: I think it's a bit dehumanizing to wildly paint people who discourage the homosexual lifestyle (majority of the world, all of history I'm pretty sure) as "bigots", "ignorant", people who somehow "fear" homosexuals, and especially "hateful". These just aren't accurate. The vast majority of people don't go out of their way to condemn homosexuals as terrible people. They simply believe in the man-and-wife, white picket fence, bring-home-the-bacon kind of lifestyle and I don't think that's to be frowned upon.
The problem for me personally though is I have no idea why someone would think its better to be straight or to be gay. Like, how could someone think that one way of life is superior for someone else. I can understand if they are looking at their situation and are like, yo it would be way easier this way. But if the person with the controversial life enjoys living his life that way, then why would anyone else care?
I think thats how it is for most people. Unfortunately, i think people are assuming that the only way for someone to think someone else should live their life differently is because of religion. I dont know if thats true or not, but i know that not all religious people tell others to live their lives certain ways.
I personally think it is better to be a heterosexual. I totally recommend it. I think it's great and the best way to live. I also like 80's rock music, dubstep, and computer programming. I naturally want people to enjoy what I enjoy and dislike what I dislike. I discourage people from listening to the Beatles and driving a Prius. I encourage people to admire a Firebird Trans Am. I don't feel ashamed of this. I don't feel like a hateful person. Everyone thinks their own way of life is superior. Think of it like that when you see a white Christian man who'd rather not have homosexuals teaching his children that the way of life they've known is oppressive and backwards and ignorant.
Homosexuals aren't trying to convert you to gay.
So I'm on some conversion spree now? Just because I voted for defining marriage as between a man and a woman doesn't mean that I have any interest in converting people. I'm incredibly tolerant, but very seldom accepting. I'll tolerate just about anything, and not make a big deal about it, but I'm only going to endorse things I actually do myself, else be labeled a hypocrite. There is a big difference between tolerance and advancement of someone else's cause. I have no obligation to advance the widespread acceptance of a minority viewpoint.
Wow, all the Christian hate. Plus the whole argument that Christians are wrong to dislike homosexuals goes against the religion's beliefs.
Here's the deal, to Christians, including myself, homosexuality is sin. Plainly and simply stated in the Bible. If we are to believe the Bible, then we are to subscribe to that notion. If we are to be Christians, we subscribe to said book. Now, other concepts are also in there that I agree a lot of Christians don't adhere to very well. For example, loving thy neighbor, regardless if they are homosexuals, atheists, or the like is a pillar of the faith. So, while Christians view homosexuals as sinners, there is no clause in there to state that they should hate them or such. In this, a lot of Christians are found wanting, I won't disagree with that.
I strongly dislike it when people basically want to throw out the Bible for its stance on things but yet want to still be true Christians. It really doesn't work like that. You may still believe in God, but once you start purposefully dissecting the book into things you agree with and don't, you've effectively created your own religion with the sole purpose to console yourself. Religion isn't something you get to specifically create with any hopes of it being true. (oh the flood of posts on this one point, of which I won't address here.) A great number of Christians believe the religion to be very true, and thus the Bible its guidance. To claim the Bible is wrong, that the Christian should just sit in their house to pray and stay hidden, is the very essence of proclaiming them and their religion as nothing but paper and folded hands. You are stating that Christians are wrong in the same way they proclaim homosexuality wrong. Both sides negate, one based on a religion, and the other based on ideal.
You don't get to tell one group to go hide, but then declare others get full reign to do whatever they want. You stomp on the rights of the one group, in favor of the other. You stomp on the rights of Christians to want their world to be somewhat in alignment with their beliefs. What if society decided that pedophilia wasn't so bad and that the age of consent was 10? I'll tell you one thing, Christians won't like that at all. Other people, however, may see it as a logical extension of being and thus want equal rights. Religion gives a rock to stand on to base one's beliefs. When there is no rock, you can simply adopt any belief and claim its truth and justification. Society does the rest to implant it, which of course doesn't actually mean it's true. Just that it's commonly accepted. (At least until scientifically proven.)
Anyway, I'm just posting some thoughts on religion. One poster above said, "I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably." Believe me when I say that Christians wish the same thing. Lately it's fun to poke fun at an entire religion because of a small number of people. I don't know any of the types of Christians that would cause the world to rage at us, so I get highly annoyed when those people are used as prime examples of why a religion fails. We have simply way too many people in the world, and as a result, you are going to get bad apples in every walk of life.
So, to finalize, the Boy Scouts are a Christian organization. To Christians who read their Bible, homosexuals pose a conundrum. If it's the BSA's line to not allow homosexuality (changing it seems), atheists, or agnostics, that is their right. Now it may cost them money, support, etc, but it is ultimately their right to be able to stand for their beliefs. It's easy to stand for your beliefs when they are all encompassing and they go with the general populace. It's generally not so easy when religious. So, I applaud them for standing their ground. If they feel that they need to change, that is also their right.
edit - I apologize for the size of the post. Just had a lot to say I guess.
On January 29 2013 13:07 KwarK wrote: You missed the point. It's not about underpopulation, it's about giving every sperm a shot at becoming a person. God hates wasted sperm.
aw shit, I wish someone gave me a memo, I'm going to hell for sure, I've wasted at least 10x more sperm than your average 20 year old gay guy.
On January 29 2013 12:25 Arghmyliver wrote: It all just stems from ignorance. I think it's sad that people are so afraid of something they will go to any length to justify their hatred of it - even citing divine edict.
I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably.
: (
I don't think a low view of homosexuality is "ignorant." People who choose to withhold their support of it may acknowledge that it is uniquely abhorrent in the fact that it has no purpose in producing offspring, which is the biological and anatomical purpose of the sex organs, and as far as sex it only satisfies lust. People may also recognize that homosexuals (specifically men) have to undergo extreme rigor in the safety of their sex because they are more likely to produce stds. Some of those people happen to be Christians, yes, and the Bible does indeed cite two places where homosexuality is explicitly condemned, but in the New Testament it does not offer any leeway to hate. I can't speak for other religions.
Then, of course there are just hateful bigots and you may be more correct in stating that they are ignorant. Nevertheless, just because someone does not support all the values that you may or may not believe in does not make them ignorant.
For these arguments to be consistent then they must also be applied to infertile people or people who use birth control. It would be very hard to make a case that a group was homophobic if they denied access to anyone who engaged in non procreative sex. But when you say it's about procreation but only pick the subgroup of people having non procreative sex who are gays to discriminate against then it's clear that it's actually another criteria being used.
Well, I'm only speaking about homosexuals here, and was giving informed evidence of why people don't like it to illustrate that it isn't solely ignorant people who don't support homosexuality. Regarding the infertile people, that doesn't really apply here because it isn't by choice. The example of people on birth control is a better parallel and we could debate on the morality of whether or not men with girlfriends on birth control should be allowed into the BSA (when I was in it I believe we were expected to not be having sex unless we were married...to a female), but there are also other reasons why a woman might take birth control other than just because she is sexually active. I'm not 100% sure what it is, but I have a friend who is frequently sick and the medicine she is on for her illness is something like $500 before insurance and even after insurance it is cheaper for her to pay for birth control out of pocket and the birth control apparently works at least as well for her as the prescription drugs.
Are there any cases of anyone being kicked out of the BSA for having protected sex (condom, blow job, hand job) with their girlfriend? Because if not then the "non procreative sex is lustful and immoral" argument would seem to only apply to gays. This is the problem with these arguments. Gays are, in pretty much every respect, much like everyone else.
Firstly, I didn't argue that non-protected sex is lust. I said that it seems to me that the only purpose of homosexual sex is to gratify the sexual desires found in everyone: i.e. lust. That said, I'm not a BSA historian so I don't know for a fact, but I would venture to guess that there have been people kicked out for all of the reasons you listed. Essentially though, what it comes down to with the BSA is that they have a right to make their own rules, and whatever logic or rhetoric you use to convince them that their arguments are fallible (if they even argue from a logical perspective) won't matter. They are legally entitled to their beliefs, as are you, and that is that. My only purpose in posting on this thread was to demonstrate that not everyone who opposes the homosexual movement/agenda or whathaveyou are ignorant or backwards as some in this thread have suggested.
Good, then explain a logical position that denounces homosexuality. You haven't done that yet. We're in no danger of species extinction through underpopulation, so your former position doesn't hold any weight. Furthermore, your position is driven more ludicrous because the looming threat on the horizon is OVERPOPULATION, something homosexuality has a positive effect against.
Please review the post that you just quoted, as I edited it to respond to your initial post against me, which I had not seen. Additionally, please reread the last sentence of the post that you just quoted. My purpose in this thread is NOT to write a peer-reviewed journal article that will display beyond all power of criticism why homosexuality is immoral, and why we should all take up weapons and burn them at the stake. My purpose IS to demonstrate that I can have informed reasons why I may or may not agree with the homosexual agenda, and that because I may disagree with those who do support it doesn't make me backwards or ignorant.
THEN DO THAT! Make a logical, reasonable case for people are vehemently anti-gay! You're the only one in your way, so get to it!. You made a claim. Your claim was that people are against gay people because they can't reproduce. First off, this is false. A gay man can have his sperm implanted in a surrogate mother. A lesbian woman can have her sperm fertilized externally by a third party and implanted in herself or a surrogate. Second of all, this argument does not reflect the sincere viewpoint of even 1% of the group you are trying to defend. This might be because of the above two points which make this argument kind of pointless.
Again, read the spoiled quotes. In full. At the end of my first post I said "Then, of course there are just hateful bigots and you may be more correct in stating that they are ignorant. Nevertheless, just because someone does not support all the values that you may or may not believe in does not make them ignorant." The people I was referring to there are what I would interpret as the "people are vehemently anti-gay," and I make no excuse for them. I'm also not intending to make a completely logical and reasonable case for the anti-gay side. I simply raised a few points of why someone who is reasonably well informed may object to the homosexual lifestyle.
On January 29 2013 12:25 Arghmyliver wrote: It all just stems from ignorance. I think it's sad that people are so afraid of something they will go to any length to justify their hatred of it - even citing divine edict.
I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably.
: (
I don't think a low view of homosexuality is "ignorant." People who choose to withhold their support of it may acknowledge that it is uniquely abhorrent in the fact that it has no purpose in producing offspring, which is the biological and anatomical purpose of the sex organs, and as far as sex it only satisfies lust. People may also recognize that homosexuals (specifically men) have to undergo extreme rigor in the safety of their sex because they are more likely to produce stds. Some of those people happen to be Christians, yes, and the Bible does indeed cite two places where homosexuality is explicitly condemned, but in the New Testament it does not offer any leeway to hate. I can't speak for other religions.
Then, of course there are just hateful bigots and you may be more correct in stating that they are ignorant. Nevertheless, just because someone does not support all the values that you may or may not believe in does not make them ignorant.
For these arguments to be consistent then they must also be applied to infertile people or people who use birth control. It would be very hard to make a case that a group was homophobic if they denied access to anyone who engaged in non procreative sex. But when you say it's about procreation but only pick the subgroup of people having non procreative sex who are gays to discriminate against then it's clear that it's actually another criteria being used.
Well, I'm only speaking about homosexuals here, and was giving informed evidence of why people don't like it to illustrate that it isn't solely ignorant people who don't support homosexuality. Regarding the infertile people, that doesn't really apply here because it isn't by choice. The example of people on birth control is a better parallel and we could debate on the morality of whether or not men with girlfriends on birth control should be allowed into the BSA (when I was in it I believe we were expected to not be having sex unless we were married...to a female), but there are also other reasons why a woman might take birth control other than just because she is sexually active. I'm not 100% sure what it is, but I have a friend who is frequently sick and the medicine she is on for her illness is something like $500 before insurance and even after insurance it is cheaper for her to pay for birth control out of pocket and the birth control apparently works at least as well for her as the prescription drugs.
Are there any cases of anyone being kicked out of the BSA for having protected sex (condom, blow job, hand job) with their girlfriend? Because if not then the "non procreative sex is lustful and immoral" argument would seem to only apply to gays. This is the problem with these arguments. Gays are, in pretty much every respect, much like everyone else.
Firstly, I didn't argue that non-protected sex is lust. I said that it seems to me that the only purpose of homosexual sex is to gratify the sexual desires found in everyone: i.e. lust. That said, I'm not a BSA historian so I don't know for a fact, but I would venture to guess that there have been people kicked out for all of the reasons you listed. Essentially though, what it comes down to with the BSA is that they have a right to make their own rules, and whatever logic or rhetoric you use to convince them that their arguments are fallible (if they even argue from a logical perspective) won't matter. They are legally entitled to their beliefs, as are you, and that is that. My only purpose in posting on this thread was to demonstrate that not everyone who opposes the homosexual movement/agenda or whathaveyou are ignorant or backwards as some in this thread have suggested.
You haven't demonstrated that. You have attempted to show that there are objections to homosexual behaviour that aren't just "because they're gay" but your objections do not appear to be consistent with the actions of anyone you suggested might hold them. Imagine if you said "their policy isn't specifically homophobic, they just banned everyone with brown eyes", you would have to show that A) they banned people who weren't gay who had brown eyes and B) they didn't ban people who were gay who didn't have brown eyes. Unfortunately their policy is specifically homophobic.
I see. With my objections, I wasn't trying to defend the BSA. I was more or less defending the people who others in this thread have referred to as 'backward' simply because they disagree with the other people's stance. More specifically, I was attempting a rebuttle to the person I quoted in my OP who said the entire problem stemmed from ignorance.
Regarding the BSA, it doesn't matter if they have a logical position or not. The are a private group that does not have to allow everyone, and the people they do allow represent them. If they don't want gays to represent them, there is no reason why they should have to. We may disagree on whether or not that is 'right,' but it is a fact. In another situation, I wouldn't want a GMO company representing me as an organic growth advocate. They may not be pure evil, but their cause still does not line up with mine and they shouldn't represent me on account of that.
It's a private group which apparently receives government funding and/or benefits that other private groups do not receive. Do you not see a problem with that?
On January 29 2013 13:28 Foblos wrote: Regarding the BSA, it doesn't matter if they have a logical position or not.
It absolutely does matter whether or not they can logically defend their stance as not homophobic. I feel at this point you're just sidestepping into "it doesn't matter anyway" when you've run out of ground to retreat to. It might not matter in the sense that they cannot be legally compelled (in the US) to alter an openly homophobic policy but it absolutely matters for their public image and for people who may want to not be a part of a homophobic organisation.
On January 29 2013 12:25 Arghmyliver wrote: It all just stems from ignorance. I think it's sad that people are so afraid of something they will go to any length to justify their hatred of it - even citing divine edict.
I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably.
: (
I don't think a low view of homosexuality is "ignorant." People who choose to withhold their support of it may acknowledge that it is uniquely abhorrent in the fact that it has no purpose in producing offspring, which is the biological and anatomical purpose of the sex organs, and as far as sex it only satisfies lust. People may also recognize that homosexuals (specifically men) have to undergo extreme rigor in the safety of their sex because they are more likely to produce stds. Some of those people happen to be Christians, yes, and the Bible does indeed cite two places where homosexuality is explicitly condemned, but in the New Testament it does not offer any leeway to hate. I can't speak for other religions.
Then, of course there are just hateful bigots and you may be more correct in stating that they are ignorant. Nevertheless, just because someone does not support all the values that you may or may not believe in does not make them ignorant.
For these arguments to be consistent then they must also be applied to infertile people or people who use birth control. It would be very hard to make a case that a group was homophobic if they denied access to anyone who engaged in non procreative sex. But when you say it's about procreation but only pick the subgroup of people having non procreative sex who are gays to discriminate against then it's clear that it's actually another criteria being used.
Well, I'm only speaking about homosexuals here, and was giving informed evidence of why people don't like it to illustrate that it isn't solely ignorant people who don't support homosexuality. Regarding the infertile people, that doesn't really apply here because it isn't by choice. The example of people on birth control is a better parallel and we could debate on the morality of whether or not men with girlfriends on birth control should be allowed into the BSA (when I was in it I believe we were expected to not be having sex unless we were married...to a female), but there are also other reasons why a woman might take birth control other than just because she is sexually active. I'm not 100% sure what it is, but I have a friend who is frequently sick and the medicine she is on for her illness is something like $500 before insurance and even after insurance it is cheaper for her to pay for birth control out of pocket and the birth control apparently works at least as well for her as the prescription drugs.
Are there any cases of anyone being kicked out of the BSA for having protected sex (condom, blow job, hand job) with their girlfriend? Because if not then the "non procreative sex is lustful and immoral" argument would seem to only apply to gays. This is the problem with these arguments. Gays are, in pretty much every respect, much like everyone else.
Firstly, I didn't argue that non-protected sex is lust. I said that it seems to me that the only purpose of homosexual sex is to gratify the sexual desires found in everyone: i.e. lust. That said, I'm not a BSA historian so I don't know for a fact, but I would venture to guess that there have been people kicked out for all of the reasons you listed. Essentially though, what it comes down to with the BSA is that they have a right to make their own rules, and whatever logic or rhetoric you use to convince them that their arguments are fallible (if they even argue from a logical perspective) won't matter. They are legally entitled to their beliefs, as are you, and that is that. My only purpose in posting on this thread was to demonstrate that not everyone who opposes the homosexual movement/agenda or whathaveyou are ignorant or backwards as some in this thread have suggested.
Good, then explain a logical position that denounces homosexuality. You haven't done that yet. We're in no danger of species extinction through underpopulation, so your former position doesn't hold any weight. Furthermore, your position is driven more ludicrous because the looming threat on the horizon is OVERPOPULATION, something homosexuality has a positive effect against.
Please review the post that you just quoted, as I edited it to respond to your initial post against me, which I had not seen. Additionally, please reread the last sentence of the post that you just quoted. My purpose in this thread is NOT to write a peer-reviewed journal article that will display beyond all power of criticism why homosexuality is immoral, and why we should all take up weapons and burn them at the stake. My purpose IS to demonstrate that I can have informed reasons why I may or may not agree with the homosexual agenda, and that because I may disagree with those who do support it doesn't make me backwards or ignorant.
THEN DO THAT! Make a logical, reasonable case for people are vehemently anti-gay! You're the only one in your way, so get to it!. You made a claim. Your claim was that people are against gay people because they can't reproduce. First off, this is false. A gay man can have his sperm implanted in a surrogate mother. A lesbian woman can have her sperm fertilized externally by a third party and implanted in herself or a surrogate. Second of all, this argument does not reflect the sincere viewpoint of even 1% of the group you are trying to defend. This might be because of the above two points which make this argument kind of pointless.
Again, read the spoiled quotes. In full. At the end of my first post I said "Then, of course there are just hateful bigots and you may be more correct in stating that they are ignorant. Nevertheless, just because someone does not support all the values that you may or may not believe in does not make them ignorant." The people I was referring to there are what I would interpret as the "people are vehemently anti-gay," and I make no excuse for them. I'm also not intending to make a completely logical and reasonable case for the anti-gay side. I simply raised a few points of why someone who is reasonably well informed may object to the homosexual lifestyle.
But your points were ignorant, poorly thought through and nonsensical. You have utterly failed to show why anyone not ignorant would be homophobic. If anything you've shown the opposite. If you're really trying to defend opposition to gays here then you are doing your side no credit.
On January 29 2013 13:28 Foblos wrote: Regarding the BSA, it doesn't matter if they have a logical position or not.
It absolutely does matter whether or not they can logically defend their stance as not homophobic. I feel at this point you're just sidestepping into "it doesn't matter anyway" when you've run out of ground to retreat to. It might not matter in the sense that they cannot be legally compelled (in the US) to alter an openly homophobic policy but it absolutely matters for their public image and for people who may want to not be a part of a homophobic organisation.
I don't intend to sidestep. My purpose was never to defend the BSA's position. Regarding their right to maintain a position which you may find morally wrong or logically lacking, I think Mecra wrote quite an eloquent post explaining it.
On January 29 2013 13:34 mecra wrote: Wow, all the Christian hate. Plus the whole argument that Christians are wrong to dislike homosexuals goes against the religion's beliefs.
Here's the deal, to Christians, including myself, homosexuality is sin. Plainly and simply stated in the Bible. If we are to believe the Bible, then we are to subscribe to that notion. If we are to be Christians, we subscribe to said book. Now, other concepts are also in there that I agree a lot of Christians don't adhere to very well. For example, loving thy neighbor, regardless if they are homosexuals, atheists, or the like is a pillar of the faith. So, while Christians view homosexuals as sinners, there is no clause in there to state that they should hate them or such. In this, a lot of Christians are found wanting, I won't disagree with that.
I strongly dislike it when people basically want to throw out the Bible for its stance on things but yet want to still be true Christians. It really doesn't work like that. You may still believe in God, but once you start purposefully dissecting the book into things you agree with and don't, you've effectively created your own religion with the sole purpose to console yourself. Religion isn't something you get to specifically create with any hopes of it being true. (oh the flood of posts on this one point, of which I won't address here.) A great number of Christians believe the religion to be very true, and thus the Bible its guidance. To claim the Bible is wrong, that the Christian should just sit in their house to pray and stay hidden, is the very essence of proclaiming them and their religion as nothing but paper and folded hands. You are stating that Christians are wrong in the same way they proclaim homosexuality wrong. Both sides negate, one based on a religion, and the other based on ideal.
You don't get to tell one group to go hide, but then declare others get full reign to do whatever they want. You stomp on the rights of the one group, in favor of the other. You stomp on the rights of Christians to want their world to be somewhat in alignment with their beliefs. What if society decided that pedophilia wasn't so bad and that the age of consent was 10? I'll tell you one thing, Christians won't like that at all. Other people, however, may see it as a logical extension of being and thus want equal rights. Religion gives a rock to stand on to base one's beliefs. When there is no rock, you can simply adopt any belief and claim its truth and justification. Society does the rest to implant it, which of course doesn't actually mean it's true. Just that it's commonly accepted. (At least until scientifically proven.)
Anyway, I'm just posting some thoughts on religion. One poster above said, "I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably." Believe me when I say that Christians wish the same thing. Lately it's fun to poke fun at an entire religion because of a small number of people. I don't know any of the types of Christians that would cause the world to rage at us, so I get highly annoyed when those people are used as prime examples of why a religion fails. We have simply way too many people in the world, and as a result, you are going to get bad apples in every walk of life.
So, to finalize, the Boy Scouts are a Christian organization. To Christians who read their Bible, homosexuals pose a conundrum. If it's the BSA's line to not allow homosexuality (changing it seems), atheists, or agnostics, that is their right. Now it may cost them money, support, etc, but it is ultimately their right to be able to stand for their beliefs. It's easy to stand for your beliefs when they are all encompassing and they go with the general populace. It's generally not so easy when religious. So, I applaud them for standing their ground. If they feel that they need to change, that is also their right.
edit - I apologize for the size of the post. Just had a lot to say I guess.
Can a man say no? Yes. Can an animal? End of discussion. Damn that was hard to think through, eh?
Edit: don't know why I expect anything different from someone who in the same post says he follows higher power morals not realizing he's been taught all his morals by other humans and not God.
Ok, I'll bite. Lets suppose a man has a dolphin or bonobo. Both of which have sex for purposes other than reproducing. Is it ok for the man to have sex with the bonobo or dolphin as long as he doesn't force it to have sex with him? What if he bribes the bonobo or dolphin with food, and they're ok with it?
I know thats wierd (and its a decently stupid example, i think theres truth here), but I feel like there are so many situations that are hard to justify.
I don't think athiests are fine with that, but I could be wrong. One thing I do appreciate about atheism is that usually the people are critical thinkers.
You just sidestepped again into freedom of religion. Nobody is saying they're not legally entitled to homophobic religious beliefs. They're condemning the beliefs. Completely different.
Can a man say no? Yes. Can an animal? End of discussion. Damn that was hard to think through, eh?
Edit: don't know why I expect anything different from someone who in the same post says he follows higher power morals not realizing he's been taught all his morals by other humans and not God.
Ok, I'll bite. Lets suppose a man has a dolphin or bonobo. Both of which have sex for purposes other than reproducing. Is it ok for the man to have sex with the bonobo or dolphin as long as he doesn't force it to have sex with him? What if he bribes the bonobo or dolphin with food, and they're ok with it?
I know thats wierd (and its a decently stupid example, i think theres truth here), but I feel like there are so many situations that are hard to justify.
I don't think athiests are fine with that, but I could be wrong. One thing I do appreciate about atheism is that usually the people are critical thinkers.
If you can murder an animal then you can rape an animal. Nobody needs to eat steak, they're just hedonists indulging urges. It's no different. Beastiality gets an all clear from me up until the animals themselves sign a petition against it which I'll expect right after the one banning abattoirs.
On January 29 2013 12:42 FeelingTookish wrote: I think it's a bit dehumanizing to wildly paint people who discourage the homosexual lifestyle (majority of the world, all of history I'm pretty sure) as "bigots", "ignorant", people who somehow "fear" homosexuals, and especially "hateful". These just aren't accurate. The vast majority of people don't go out of their way to condemn homosexuals as terrible people. They simply believe in the man-and-wife, white picket fence, bring-home-the-bacon kind of lifestyle and I don't think that's to be frowned upon.
The problem for me personally though is I have no idea why someone would think its better to be straight or to be gay. Like, how could someone think that one way of life is superior for someone else. I can understand if they are looking at their situation and are like, yo it would be way easier this way. But if the person with the controversial life enjoys living his life that way, then why would anyone else care?
I think thats how it is for most people. Unfortunately, i think people are assuming that the only way for someone to think someone else should live their life differently is because of religion. I dont know if thats true or not, but i know that not all religious people tell others to live their lives certain ways.
I personally think it is better to be a heterosexual. I totally recommend it. I think it's great and the best way to live. I also like 80's rock music, dubstep, and computer programming. I naturally want people to enjoy what I enjoy and dislike what I dislike. I discourage people from listening to the Beatles and driving a Prius. I encourage people to admire a Firebird Trans Am. I don't feel ashamed of this. I don't feel like a hateful person. Everyone thinks their own way of life is superior. Think of it like that when you see a white Christian man who'd rather not have homosexuals teaching his children that the way of life they've known is oppressive and backwards and ignorant.
I am personally fine with anyone who hates niggers. I just don't believe that our government or any commercial or non-profit entity within it should be allowed to discriminate against someone based upon some man-made classification. It seems a bit petty, to decide what a human being can and cannot do based on the color of their skin or who they legally fuck.
I, believing in limited government, think that the government has no place throwing tax money at any social organization, regardless of purpose, regardless of their social and political values. In California, whites, and especially asians are empirically discriminated against in the public universities with respect to admission. This is also wrong. It seems we agree.
On January 29 2013 13:45 KwarK wrote: If you can murder an animal then you can rape an animal. Nobody needs to eat steak, they're just hedonists indulging urges. It's no different. Beastiality gets an all clear from me up until the animals themselves sign a petition against it which I'll expect right after the one banning abattoirs.
This is a perfectly good example of one of my points. The world has the ability to define right and wrong simply by whim or until it becomes common practice. People might argue about torturing the animal vs just killing it, but again, how can anyone really argue either way without a moral base. Animals can't speak words, so unless we use their actions, there's no justification to claim what's happening is wrong. This is obviously where Christians grind against the world since a great deal of their morals come from religious texts and are thusly already defined.
In 10-20 years, who knows what the world will say is right or wrong. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's just the nature of a system that self defines itself whenever it desires. So, as with homosexuality, what will be the item of moral debate in the next generation?
On January 29 2013 13:45 KwarK wrote: If you can murder an animal then you can rape an animal. Nobody needs to eat steak, they're just hedonists indulging urges. It's no different. Beastiality gets an all clear from me up until the animals themselves sign a petition against it which I'll expect right after the one banning abattoirs.
This is a perfectly good example of one of my points. The world has the ability to define right and wrong simply by whim or until it becomes common practice. People might argue about torturing the animal vs just killing it, but again, how can anyone really argue either way without a moral base. Animals can't speak words, so unless we use their actions, there's no justification to claim what's happening is wrong. This is obviously where Christians grind against the world since a great deal of their morals come from religious texts and are thusly already defined.
In 10-20 years, who knows what the world will say is right or wrong. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's just the nature of a system that self defines itself whenever it desires. So, as with homosexuality, what will be the item of moral debate in the next generation?
This is largely the point I was trying to make, unfortunately it seemed to be largely ignored as well .
Morality is subject to the perspective of the majority.
On January 29 2013 13:45 KwarK wrote: If you can murder an animal then you can rape an animal. Nobody needs to eat steak, they're just hedonists indulging urges. It's no different. Beastiality gets an all clear from me up until the animals themselves sign a petition against it which I'll expect right after the one banning abattoirs.
This is a perfectly good example of one of my points. The world has the ability to define right and wrong simply by whim or until it becomes common practice. People might argue about torturing the animal vs just killing it, but again, how can anyone really argue either way without a moral base. Animals can't speak words, so unless we use their actions, there's no justification to claim what's happening is wrong. This is obviously where Christians grind against the world since a great deal of their morals come from religious texts and are thusly already defined.
In 10-20 years, who knows what the world will say is right or wrong. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's just the nature of a system that self defines itself whenever it desires. So, as with homosexuality, what will be the item of moral debate in the next generation?
You could understand his post? I couldn't sift through all the sarcasm... If it was sarcasm. Murdering animals? Who murders animals? The closest you can get to murder (that is acceptable in society) is hunting for sport, but thats for the challenge, the hunt, not the physical act of killing? Mind you, I may have missed KwarK's point entirely because Im tired/dumb/both.
Can a man say no? Yes. Can an animal? End of discussion. Damn that was hard to think through, eh?
Edit: don't know why I expect anything different from someone who in the same post says he follows higher power morals not realizing he's been taught all his morals by other humans and not God.
Ok, I'll bite. Lets suppose a man has a dolphin or bonobo. Both of which have sex for purposes other than reproducing. Is it ok for the man to have sex with the bonobo or dolphin as long as he doesn't force it to have sex with him? What if he bribes the bonobo or dolphin with food, and they're ok with it?
I know thats wierd (and its a decently stupid example, i think theres truth here), but I feel like there are so many situations that are hard to justify.
I don't think athiests are fine with that, but I could be wrong. One thing I do appreciate about atheism is that usually the people are critical thinkers.
If you can murder an animal then you can rape an animal.
Ugh why does this seem so logical and illogical at the same time?
On January 29 2013 12:42 FeelingTookish wrote: I think it's a bit dehumanizing to wildly paint people who discourage the homosexual lifestyle (majority of the world, all of history I'm pretty sure) as "bigots", "ignorant", people who somehow "fear" homosexuals, and especially "hateful". These just aren't accurate. The vast majority of people don't go out of their way to condemn homosexuals as terrible people. They simply believe in the man-and-wife, white picket fence, bring-home-the-bacon kind of lifestyle and I don't think that's to be frowned upon.
One man, one woman, add misogyny. Got it. I mean, I don't hate christians. I don't actively condemn them as terrible people (because I stay away from them whenever I can). I just try to make sure that they can't get married or raise children.
I'm not sure belief in traditional gender roles implies misogyny any more than it implies misandry. I think both sexes should be encouraged to use the strengths biologically given to them. And you brought up child-rearing, so I'll pitch this: It's hard to argue that one mother and one father is demonstrably the ideal situation for a child, however much you may cite the divorce rate, etc.
When and where were these gender roles traditional, and what were they? What strengths are biologically given to men to make them more able to "bring-home-the-bacon"? Enlighten me!
Really? You haven't figured out that women are better looking and men are stronger, that women are better at dealing with small children, and a man makes a better commando, sheriff, ditch-digger, etc? Is this too common-sensical for you or do you want me to dig up obscure statistics and lengthy historical arguments? If you can't accept this premise, then any argument we have will be rather low-level and semantic.
But aside from that this recent discussion makes me wonder if there is any reasonable justification for...not liking homosexuals? Wanting to ban them from holding positions in your club? I guess that's what it comes down to.
Well I think there may be in terms of natural, inborn aversions to certain types of people. Like, certain individuals may dislike talking to fat people, because all of that blubber makes them uncomfortable for whatever reason (lol) - maybe its just disgusting to them, and they don't want to look at all that flabbiness and observe the deterioration of any human body. Along the same vein, maybe its also reasonable for certain people to dislike gays, because their sexual preferences gives them a "freakish" nature that others may find disturbing.
So then, is it okay to discriminate against someone, or deny them access to the higher levels of your club? Would it be "moral" to look down upon a beautiful person's club, which does not allow ugly people to join? I feel like that's what could be going on here. Its a club, that among other things, promotes "straight" sexuality and a certain way of life because they think that the homosexual way of life is somewhat perverse or disturbing, so they keep it out of the club. Is it morally wrong for people to be disturbed by these sorts of things (if they indeed are)?
I feel like the assumption is that, its okay to criticize them (Boy scouts) because they just have some bigoted attitudes against gays that aren't founded on anything except baseless hatred - or similarly, based in the perceived fantasy that is religion. Not sure if this is necessarily the case. But anyway I somehow doubt that my hypothetical idea is very likely. But for the indoctrinated, I think there is something to be said about transitioning from bigoted religious belief to something inborn that can't be shaken. Then its not so easily defined.
On January 29 2013 14:01 FeelingTookish wrote: Really? You haven't figured out that women are better looking and men are stronger, that women are better at dealing with small children, and a man makes a better commando, sheriff, ditch-digger, etc? Is this too common-sensical for you or do you want me to dig up obscure statistics and lengthy historical arguments? If you can't accept this premise, then any argument we have will be rather low-level and semantic.
Mental differences even! Men and women are very different physically and mentally. If you take the evolutionary stance, there are even more differences that may have lessened over time.
I, however, certainly have no desire to lactate! So evolution can leave the women with that.
On January 29 2013 13:34 mecra wrote: Wow, all the Christian hate. Plus the whole argument that Christians are wrong to dislike homosexuals goes against the religion's beliefs.
Here's the deal, to Christians, including myself, homosexuality is sin. Plainly and simply stated in the Bible. If we are to believe the Bible, then we are to subscribe to that notion. If we are to be Christians, we subscribe to said book. Now, other concepts are also in there that I agree a lot of Christians don't adhere to very well. For example, loving thy neighbor, regardless if they are homosexuals, atheists, or the like is a pillar of the faith. So, while Christians view homosexuals as sinners, there is no clause in there to state that they should hate them or such. In this, a lot of Christians are found wanting, I won't disagree with that.
I strongly dislike it when people basically want to throw out the Bible for its stance on things but yet want to still be true Christians. It really doesn't work like that. You may still believe in God, but once you start purposefully dissecting the book into things you agree with and don't, you've effectively created your own religion with the sole purpose to console yourself. Religion isn't something you get to specifically create with any hopes of it being true. (oh the flood of posts on this one point, of which I won't address here.) A great number of Christians believe the religion to be very true, and thus the Bible its guidance. To claim the Bible is wrong, that the Christian should just sit in their house to pray and stay hidden, is the very essence of proclaiming them and their religion as nothing but paper and folded hands. You are stating that Christians are wrong in the same way they proclaim homosexuality wrong. Both sides negate, one based on a religion, and the other based on ideal.
You don't get to tell one group to go hide, but then declare others get full reign to do whatever they want. You stomp on the rights of the one group, in favor of the other. You stomp on the rights of Christians to want their world to be somewhat in alignment with their beliefs. What if society decided that pedophilia wasn't so bad and that the age of consent was 10? I'll tell you one thing, Christians won't like that at all. Other people, however, may see it as a logical extension of being and thus want equal rights. Religion gives a rock to stand on to base one's beliefs. When there is no rock, you can simply adopt any belief and claim its truth and justification. Society does the rest to implant it, which of course doesn't actually mean it's true. Just that it's commonly accepted. (At least until scientifically proven.)
Anyway, I'm just posting some thoughts on religion. One poster above said, "I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably." Believe me when I say that Christians wish the same thing. Lately it's fun to poke fun at an entire religion because of a small number of people. I don't know any of the types of Christians that would cause the world to rage at us, so I get highly annoyed when those people are used as prime examples of why a religion fails. We have simply way too many people in the world, and as a result, you are going to get bad apples in every walk of life.
So, to finalize, the Boy Scouts are a Christian organization. To Christians who read their Bible, homosexuals pose a conundrum. If it's the BSA's line to not allow homosexuality (changing it seems), atheists, or agnostics, that is their right. Now it may cost them money, support, etc, but it is ultimately their right to be able to stand for their beliefs. It's easy to stand for your beliefs when they are all encompassing and they go with the general populace. It's generally not so easy when religious. So, I applaud them for standing their ground. If they feel that they need to change, that is also their right.
edit - I apologize for the size of the post. Just had a lot to say I guess.
I think youre making some sweeping generalizations about christians that are not necessarily true. Homosexuality may be a sin, but so is flipping someone off when they cut into your lane on the highway. It's a sin to eat too much and to not study enough for your tests. The definition of sin wasnt layed out so we can tell eachother not to sin, its there so we can know that we are incapable of being perfect. Just because a christian doesnt care whether or not people are gay doesnt mean they are throwing the bible out the window. Theres a problem people have within themselves that permeates beyond their actions.
If someone claims they dont have a problem then it isnt up to me to change their mind. If someone says they do have a problem, then me telling them that they need to stop sinning isnt going to help them at all.
So in light of this, as a christian who believes he is holding to all of the bible, i have to disagree with you. If it claims to be a christian organization it shoudnt expel children who have "problems" it should try to help them actually take care of the real issue. And if the child doesnt think he has a problem, its kind of messed up for me to try and be the hand of god in convicting them
On January 29 2013 14:03 radscorpion9 wrote: Is it morally wrong for people to be disturbed (if they are)? I feel like the assumption is that, its okay to criticize them (Boy scouts) because they just have some bigoted attitudes against gays that aren't founded on anything except baseless hatred - or similarly, based in the perceived fantasy that is religion.
Again, if you keep discounting religion and falsifying it, you won't ever understand it. You say baseless hatred, I don't see hatred (you over-dramatized) but an adherence to their religion. If you negate that simply because you don't believe it, then it's quite easy for me to negate your view of homosexuality as being ok.
On January 29 2013 12:42 FeelingTookish wrote: I think it's a bit dehumanizing to wildly paint people who discourage the homosexual lifestyle (majority of the world, all of history I'm pretty sure) as "bigots", "ignorant", people who somehow "fear" homosexuals, and especially "hateful". These just aren't accurate. The vast majority of people don't go out of their way to condemn homosexuals as terrible people. They simply believe in the man-and-wife, white picket fence, bring-home-the-bacon kind of lifestyle and I don't think that's to be frowned upon.
One man, one woman, add misogyny. Got it. I mean, I don't hate christians. I don't actively condemn them as terrible people (because I stay away from them whenever I can). I just try to make sure that they can't get married or raise children.
I'm not sure belief in traditional gender roles implies misogyny any more than it implies misandry. I think both sexes should be encouraged to use the strengths biologically given to them. And you brought up child-rearing, so I'll pitch this: It's hard to argue that one mother and one father is demonstrably the ideal situation for a child, however much you may cite the divorce rate, etc.
When and where were these gender roles traditional, and what were they? What strengths are biologically given to men to make them more able to "bring-home-the-bacon"? Enlighten me!
Really? You haven't figured out that women are better looking and men are stronger, that women are better at dealing with small children, and a man makes a better commando, sheriff, ditch-digger, etc? Is this too common-sensical for you or do you want me to dig up obscure statistics and lengthy historical arguments? If you can't accept this premise, then any argument we have will be rather low-level and semantic.
I don't think you are being misogynistic, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "discourage the homosexual lifestyle". To what extent are you discouraging homosexuals? Are you opposed to them getting married/raising kids or just altogether opposed to the concept of homosexuality?
Can a man say no? Yes. Can an animal? End of discussion. Damn that was hard to think through, eh?
Edit: don't know why I expect anything different from someone who in the same post says he follows higher power morals not realizing he's been taught all his morals by other humans and not God.
Ok, I'll bite. Lets suppose a man has a dolphin or bonobo. Both of which have sex for purposes other than reproducing. Is it ok for the man to have sex with the bonobo or dolphin as long as he doesn't force it to have sex with him? What if he bribes the bonobo or dolphin with food, and they're ok with it?
I know thats wierd (and its a decently stupid example, i think theres truth here), but I feel like there are so many situations that are hard to justify.
I don't think athiests are fine with that, but I could be wrong. One thing I do appreciate about atheism is that usually the people are critical thinkers.
LOL humping hydra, what an appropriate name .
But aside from that this recent discussion makes me wonder if there is any reasonable justification for...not liking homosexuals? Wanting to ban them from holding positions in your club? I guess that's what it comes down to.
Well I think there may be in terms of natural, inborn aversions to certain types of people. Like, certain individuals may dislike talking to fat people, because all of that blubber makes them uncomfortable for whatever reason (lol) - maybe its just disgusting to them, and they don't wan to look at all that flabbiness. Along the same vein, maybe its also reasonable for certain people to dislike gays, because there sexual preferences gives them a "freakish" nature that the others find disturbing.
So then, is it okay to discriminate against someone, or deny them access to the higher levels of your club? Would it be "moral" to look down upon a beautiful person's club, which does not allow ugly people to join? I feel like that's what could be going on here. Its a club, that among other things, promotes "straight" sexuality and a certain way of life because they think that the homosexual way of life is somewhat perverse or disturbing, so they keep it out of the club. Is it morally wrong for people to be disturbed (if they are)? I feel like the assumption is that, its okay to criticize them (Boy scouts) because they just have some bigoted attitudes against gays that aren't founded on anything except baseless hatred - or similarly, based in the perceived fantasy that is religion.
No man
you see
if you let these homosexuals into the boy scouts, they will convert everyone to the homosexual lifestyle, and they will have gay sex inside their tents, constantly
this is a plot by the gays and their homosexual agenda to trick people into thinking that homosexuals aren't deviants who spend every moment of their lives lusting after the same sex
On January 29 2013 14:03 radscorpion9 wrote: Is it morally wrong for people to be disturbed (if they are)? I feel like the assumption is that, its okay to criticize them (Boy scouts) because they just have some bigoted attitudes against gays that aren't founded on anything except baseless hatred - or similarly, based in the perceived fantasy that is religion.
Again, if you keep discounting religion and falsifying it, you won't ever understand it. You say baseless hatred, I don't see hatred (you over-dramatized) but an adherence to their religion. If you negate that simply because you don't believe it, then it's quite easy for me to negate your view of homosexuality as being ok.
I wanted to be clear, but that one word (perceived) may have passed unnoticed, so let me do a better job of it: I'm just saying that the way people often frame the argument, that they often (typically) view the anti-gay side as being the result of religion that is basically just a fiction to them, and so is basically a form of unsubstantiated bigotry.
I am not saying anything specifically one way or the other, because I have no interest in starting that discussion or upsetting anyone. I'm just observing how the arguments are framed in society in general, on what grounds the contempt for Boy Scouts, or any other similar organization, is based on. The reason was I was trying to observe whether this approach or assumption is justified, so I left it as an open question.
Also I said it was similar to baseless hatred - in that it is a form of disgust which is a similar negative emotion. So yeah, a bunch of technicalities. Hatred probably is too strong a word in some cases, probably the wrong word in general. But I think there are definitely some crazy people (Phelps?) who do hate gays.
On January 29 2013 14:13 wozzot wrote: No man
you see
if you let these homosexuals into the boy scouts, they will convert everyone to the homosexual lifestyle, and they will have gay sex inside their tents, constantly
this is a plot by the gays and their homosexual agenda to trick people into thinking that homosexuals aren't deviants who spend every moment of their lives lusting after the same sex
this is what some people actually believe
haha . I'm sure they do. You don't seem to be debating my point, but it is amusing to think of the homosexual agenda. It actually makes me wonder, whether we need religion to protect people from themselves (those who are susceptible to this paranoia) - or whether its the other way around, and religion fosters this type of paranoia. Hmmm... I'll go with the latter.
Edit: uh-oh I just realized I might have typed something "upsetting". Sorry religious person . I didn't mean it lol
On January 29 2013 13:34 mecra wrote: Wow, all the Christian hate. Plus the whole argument that Christians are wrong to dislike homosexuals goes against the religion's beliefs.
Here's the deal, to Christians, including myself, homosexuality is sin. Plainly and simply stated in the Bible. If we are to believe the Bible, then we are to subscribe to that notion. If we are to be Christians, we subscribe to said book. Now, other concepts are also in there that I agree a lot of Christians don't adhere to very well. For example, loving thy neighbor, regardless if they are homosexuals, atheists, or the like is a pillar of the faith. So, while Christians view homosexuals as sinners, there is no clause in there to state that they should hate them or such. In this, a lot of Christians are found wanting, I won't disagree with that.
I strongly dislike it when people basically want to throw out the Bible for its stance on things but yet want to still be true Christians. It really doesn't work like that. You may still believe in God, but once you start purposefully dissecting the book into things you agree with and don't, you've effectively created your own religion with the sole purpose to console yourself. Religion isn't something you get to specifically create with any hopes of it being true. (oh the flood of posts on this one point, of which I won't address here.) A great number of Christians believe the religion to be very true, and thus the Bible its guidance. To claim the Bible is wrong, that the Christian should just sit in their house to pray and stay hidden, is the very essence of proclaiming them and their religion as nothing but paper and folded hands. You are stating that Christians are wrong in the same way they proclaim homosexuality wrong. Both sides negate, one based on a religion, and the other based on ideal.
You don't get to tell one group to go hide, but then declare others get full reign to do whatever they want. You stomp on the rights of the one group, in favor of the other. You stomp on the rights of Christians to want their world to be somewhat in alignment with their beliefs. What if society decided that pedophilia wasn't so bad and that the age of consent was 10? I'll tell you one thing, Christians won't like that at all. Other people, however, may see it as a logical extension of being and thus want equal rights. Religion gives a rock to stand on to base one's beliefs. When there is no rock, you can simply adopt any belief and claim its truth and justification. Society does the rest to implant it, which of course doesn't actually mean it's true. Just that it's commonly accepted. (At least until scientifically proven.)
Anyway, I'm just posting some thoughts on religion. One poster above said, "I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably." Believe me when I say that Christians wish the same thing. Lately it's fun to poke fun at an entire religion because of a small number of people. I don't know any of the types of Christians that would cause the world to rage at us, so I get highly annoyed when those people are used as prime examples of why a religion fails. We have simply way too many people in the world, and as a result, you are going to get bad apples in every walk of life.
So, to finalize, the Boy Scouts are a Christian organization. To Christians who read their Bible, homosexuals pose a conundrum. If it's the BSA's line to not allow homosexuality (changing it seems), atheists, or agnostics, that is their right. Now it may cost them money, support, etc, but it is ultimately their right to be able to stand for their beliefs. It's easy to stand for your beliefs when they are all encompassing and they go with the general populace. It's generally not so easy when religious. So, I applaud them for standing their ground. If they feel that they need to change, that is also their right.
edit - I apologize for the size of the post. Just had a lot to say I guess.
I think youre making some sweeping generalizations about christians that are not necessarily true. Homosexuality may be a sin, but so is flipping someone off when they cut into your lane on the highway. It's a sin to eat too much and to not study enough for your tests. The definition of sin wasnt layed out so we can tell eachother not to sin, its there so we can know that we are incapable of being perfect. Just because a christian doesnt care whether or not people are gay doesnt mean they are throwing the bible out the window. Theres a problem people have within themselves that permeates beyond their actions.
If someone claims they dont have a problem then it isnt up to me to change their mind. If someone says they do have a problem, then me telling them that they need to stop sinning isnt going to help them at all.
So in light of this, as a christian who believes he is holding to all of the bible, i have to disagree with you. If it claims to be a christian organization it shoudnt expel children who have "problems" it should try to help them actually take care of the real issue. And if the child doesnt think he has a problem, its kind of messed up for me to try and be the hand of god in convicting them
Like any organization, they want to promote people that share their values. The people have to demonstrate through action that they fit the mold the Boy Scouts are looking for. If a child, or leader is an atheist with no plans of changing that, how does accepting them into the club help the individual or the organization? Logically neither of them benefit, save to make some political point.
"If it claims to be a christian organization it shoudnt expel children..."
This is the same straw-man argument claiming Christians are supposed to be pacifists, turn the other cheek, etc. Christians are not pacifists, and are not commanded to accept people as they are. Christianity teaches tolerance. *Actual* tolerance. Not the redefined progressive tolerance which is code for acceptance and celebration. A Christian organization shouldn't have to accept or celebrate views antithetical to their organization's stated goals.
Can a man say no? Yes. Can an animal? End of discussion. Damn that was hard to think through, eh?
Edit: don't know why I expect anything different from someone who in the same post says he follows higher power morals not realizing he's been taught all his morals by other humans and not God.
Ok, I'll bite. Lets suppose a man has a dolphin or bonobo. Both of which have sex for purposes other than reproducing. Is it ok for the man to have sex with the bonobo or dolphin as long as he doesn't force it to have sex with him? What if he bribes the bonobo or dolphin with food, and they're ok with it?
I know thats wierd (and its a decently stupid example, i think theres truth here), but I feel like there are so many situations that are hard to justify.
I don't think athiests are fine with that, but I could be wrong. One thing I do appreciate about atheism is that usually the people are critical thinkers.
LOL humping hydra, what an appropriate name .
But aside from that this recent discussion makes me wonder if there is any reasonable justification for...not liking homosexuals? Wanting to ban them from holding positions in your club? I guess that's what it comes down to.
Well I think there may be in terms of natural, inborn aversions to certain types of people. Like, certain individuals may dislike talking to fat people, because all of that blubber makes them uncomfortable for whatever reason (lol) - maybe its just disgusting to them, and they don't wan to look at all that flabbiness. Along the same vein, maybe its also reasonable for certain people to dislike gays, because there sexual preferences gives them a "freakish" nature that the others find disturbing.
So then, is it okay to discriminate against someone, or deny them access to the higher levels of your club? Would it be "moral" to look down upon a beautiful person's club, which does not allow ugly people to join? I feel like that's what could be going on here. Its a club, that among other things, promotes "straight" sexuality and a certain way of life because they think that the homosexual way of life is somewhat perverse or disturbing, so they keep it out of the club. Is it morally wrong for people to be disturbed (if they are)? I feel like the assumption is that, its okay to criticize them (Boy scouts) because they just have some bigoted attitudes against gays that aren't founded on anything except baseless hatred - or similarly, based in the perceived fantasy that is religion.
No man
you see
if you let these homosexuals into the boy scouts, they will convert everyone to the homosexual lifestyle, and they will have gay sex inside their tents, constantly
this is a plot by the gays and their homosexual agenda to trick people into thinking that homosexuals aren't deviants who spend every moment of their lives lusting after the same sex
this is what some people actually believe
Or more possibly cause members to lose faith in the institution of marriage or lose their faith in God or start disobeying their parents because of the influence of people that have made it very clear they do not share the values and goals of the club. What's the point of a club if everyone is allowed in? Then there would only be one club, Earth.
On January 29 2013 14:05 Buff345 wrote: I think youre making some sweeping generalizations about christians that are not necessarily true. Homosexuality may be a sin, but so is flipping someone off when they cut into your lane on the highway. It's a sin to eat too much and to not study enough for your tests. The definition of sin wasnt layed out so we can tell eachother not to sin, its there so we can know that we are incapable of being perfect. Just because a christian doesnt care whether or not people are gay doesnt mean they are throwing the bible out the window. Theres a problem people have within themselves that permeates beyond their actions.
If someone claims they dont have a problem then it isnt up to me to change their mind. If someone says they do have a problem, then me telling them that they need to stop sinning isnt going to help them at all.
So in light of this, as a christian who believes he is holding to all of the bible, i have to disagree with you. If it claims to be a christian organization it shoudnt expel children who have "problems" it should try to help them actually take care of the real issue. And if the child doesnt think he has a problem, its kind of messed up for me to try and be the hand of god in convicting them
Being a Christian of 35 years lends me a great deal of experience, and I never said some of the above. You are making assumptions incorrectly.
I would say that one must adhere to a stance if not doing so would cause harm to the belief. It's fine not trying to change the mind of someone who doesn't have a problem with it, but it isn't when it becomes church defining doctrine. I mean the latter to a degree that it changes the Bible. For example, calling homosexuality not a sin in church would be a problem. Meeting someone at work who thinks it's fine, agreed that's not the place to call down fire and brimstone.
However, you are accurate that Christians should help where they can and not to use sin as a bludgeoning tool. Maybe this is where the BSA is changing it's stance? Possibly not and it's just societal pressure. I'm unsure.
On January 29 2013 13:34 mecra wrote: Wow, all the Christian hate. Plus the whole argument that Christians are wrong to dislike homosexuals goes against the religion's beliefs.
Here's the deal, to Christians, including myself, homosexuality is sin. Plainly and simply stated in the Bible. If we are to believe the Bible, then we are to subscribe to that notion. If we are to be Christians, we subscribe to said book. Now, other concepts are also in there that I agree a lot of Christians don't adhere to very well. For example, loving thy neighbor, regardless if they are homosexuals, atheists, or the like is a pillar of the faith. So, while Christians view homosexuals as sinners, there is no clause in there to state that they should hate them or such. In this, a lot of Christians are found wanting, I won't disagree with that.
I strongly dislike it when people basically want to throw out the Bible for its stance on things but yet want to still be true Christians. It really doesn't work like that. You may still believe in God, but once you start purposefully dissecting the book into things you agree with and don't, you've effectively created your own religion with the sole purpose to console yourself. Religion isn't something you get to specifically create with any hopes of it being true. (oh the flood of posts on this one point, of which I won't address here.) A great number of Christians believe the religion to be very true, and thus the Bible its guidance. To claim the Bible is wrong, that the Christian should just sit in their house to pray and stay hidden, is the very essence of proclaiming them and their religion as nothing but paper and folded hands. You are stating that Christians are wrong in the same way they proclaim homosexuality wrong. Both sides negate, one based on a religion, and the other based on ideal.
You don't get to tell one group to go hide, but then declare others get full reign to do whatever they want. You stomp on the rights of the one group, in favor of the other. You stomp on the rights of Christians to want their world to be somewhat in alignment with their beliefs. What if society decided that pedophilia wasn't so bad and that the age of consent was 10? I'll tell you one thing, Christians won't like that at all. Other people, however, may see it as a logical extension of being and thus want equal rights. Religion gives a rock to stand on to base one's beliefs. When there is no rock, you can simply adopt any belief and claim its truth and justification. Society does the rest to implant it, which of course doesn't actually mean it's true. Just that it's commonly accepted. (At least until scientifically proven.)
Anyway, I'm just posting some thoughts on religion. One poster above said, "I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably." Believe me when I say that Christians wish the same thing. Lately it's fun to poke fun at an entire religion because of a small number of people. I don't know any of the types of Christians that would cause the world to rage at us, so I get highly annoyed when those people are used as prime examples of why a religion fails. We have simply way too many people in the world, and as a result, you are going to get bad apples in every walk of life.
So, to finalize, the Boy Scouts are a Christian organization. To Christians who read their Bible, homosexuals pose a conundrum. If it's the BSA's line to not allow homosexuality (changing it seems), atheists, or agnostics, that is their right. Now it may cost them money, support, etc, but it is ultimately their right to be able to stand for their beliefs. It's easy to stand for your beliefs when they are all encompassing and they go with the general populace. It's generally not so easy when religious. So, I applaud them for standing their ground. If they feel that they need to change, that is also their right.
edit - I apologize for the size of the post. Just had a lot to say I guess.
I think youre making some sweeping generalizations about christians that are not necessarily true. Homosexuality may be a sin, but so is flipping someone off when they cut into your lane on the highway. It's a sin to eat too much and to not study enough for your tests. The definition of sin wasnt layed out so we can tell eachother not to sin, its there so we can know that we are incapable of being perfect. Just because a christian doesnt care whether or not people are gay doesnt mean they are throwing the bible out the window. Theres a problem people have within themselves that permeates beyond their actions.
If someone claims they dont have a problem then it isnt up to me to change their mind. If someone says they do have a problem, then me telling them that they need to stop sinning isnt going to help them at all.
So in light of this, as a christian who believes he is holding to all of the bible, i have to disagree with you. If it claims to be a christian organization it shoudnt expel children who have "problems" it should try to help them actually take care of the real issue. And if the child doesnt think he has a problem, its kind of messed up for me to try and be the hand of god in convicting them
Like any organization, they want to promote people that share their values. The people have to demonstrate through action that they fit the mold the Boy Scouts are looking for. If a child, or leader is an atheist with no plans of changing that, how does accepting them into the club help the individual or the organization? Logically neither of them benefit, save to make some political point.
"If it claims to be a christian organization it shoudnt expel children..."
This is the same straw-man argument claiming Christians are supposed to be pacifists, turn the other cheek, etc. Christians are not pacifists, and are not commanded to accept people as they are. Christianity teaches tolerance. *Actual* tolerance. Not the redefined progressive tolerance which is code for acceptance and celebration. A Christian organization shouldn't have to accept or celebrate views antithetical to their organization's stated goals.
Ok, but what are christian values? Im just saying you dont have to think that being straight is a christian value in order to be a christian. As a christian organization i can understand not having a leader who is an athiest. But what the bible holds as vital is trust in god, not the ability to have control over our bodies and what we desire.
On January 29 2013 14:18 FeelingTookish wrote: Like any organization, they want to promote people that share their values. The people have to demonstrate through action that they fit the mold the Boy Scouts are looking for. If a child, or leader is an atheist with no plans of changing that, how does accepting them into the club help the individual or the organization? Logically neither of them benefit, save to make some political point.
"If it claims to be a christian organization it shoudnt expel children..."
This is the same straw-man argument claiming Christians are supposed to be pacifists, turn the other cheek, etc. Christians are not pacifists, and are not commanded to accept people as they are. Christianity teaches tolerance. *Actual* tolerance. Not the redefined progressive tolerance which is code for acceptance and celebration. A Christian organization shouldn't have to accept or celebrate views antithetical to their organization's stated goals.
The only reason many Christians take such a firm stance against homosexuality is because it's one of the only sins in the Bible that they never have any urge to partake in.
On January 29 2013 13:34 mecra wrote: Wow, all the Christian hate. Plus the whole argument that Christians are wrong to dislike homosexuals goes against the religion's beliefs.
Here's the deal, to Christians, including myself, homosexuality is sin. Plainly and simply stated in the Bible. If we are to believe the Bible, then we are to subscribe to that notion. If we are to be Christians, we subscribe to said book. Now, other concepts are also in there that I agree a lot of Christians don't adhere to very well. For example, loving thy neighbor, regardless if they are homosexuals, atheists, or the like is a pillar of the faith. So, while Christians view homosexuals as sinners, there is no clause in there to state that they should hate them or such. In this, a lot of Christians are found wanting, I won't disagree with that.
I strongly dislike it when people basically want to throw out the Bible for its stance on things but yet want to still be true Christians. It really doesn't work like that. You may still believe in God, but once you start purposefully dissecting the book into things you agree with and don't, you've effectively created your own religion with the sole purpose to console yourself. Religion isn't something you get to specifically create with any hopes of it being true. (oh the flood of posts on this one point, of which I won't address here.) A great number of Christians believe the religion to be very true, and thus the Bible its guidance. To claim the Bible is wrong, that the Christian should just sit in their house to pray and stay hidden, is the very essence of proclaiming them and their religion as nothing but paper and folded hands. You are stating that Christians are wrong in the same way they proclaim homosexuality wrong. Both sides negate, one based on a religion, and the other based on ideal.
You don't get to tell one group to go hide, but then declare others get full reign to do whatever they want. You stomp on the rights of the one group, in favor of the other. You stomp on the rights of Christians to want their world to be somewhat in alignment with their beliefs. What if society decided that pedophilia wasn't so bad and that the age of consent was 10? I'll tell you one thing, Christians won't like that at all. Other people, however, may see it as a logical extension of being and thus want equal rights. Religion gives a rock to stand on to base one's beliefs. When there is no rock, you can simply adopt any belief and claim its truth and justification. Society does the rest to implant it, which of course doesn't actually mean it's true. Just that it's commonly accepted. (At least until scientifically proven.)
Anyway, I'm just posting some thoughts on religion. One poster above said, "I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably." Believe me when I say that Christians wish the same thing. Lately it's fun to poke fun at an entire religion because of a small number of people. I don't know any of the types of Christians that would cause the world to rage at us, so I get highly annoyed when those people are used as prime examples of why a religion fails. We have simply way too many people in the world, and as a result, you are going to get bad apples in every walk of life.
So, to finalize, the Boy Scouts are a Christian organization. To Christians who read their Bible, homosexuals pose a conundrum. If it's the BSA's line to not allow homosexuality (changing it seems), atheists, or agnostics, that is their right. Now it may cost them money, support, etc, but it is ultimately their right to be able to stand for their beliefs. It's easy to stand for your beliefs when they are all encompassing and they go with the general populace. It's generally not so easy when religious. So, I applaud them for standing their ground. If they feel that they need to change, that is also their right.
edit - I apologize for the size of the post. Just had a lot to say I guess.
I think youre making some sweeping generalizations about christians that are not necessarily true. Homosexuality may be a sin, but so is flipping someone off when they cut into your lane on the highway. It's a sin to eat too much and to not study enough for your tests. The definition of sin wasnt layed out so we can tell eachother not to sin, its there so we can know that we are incapable of being perfect. Just because a christian doesnt care whether or not people are gay doesnt mean they are throwing the bible out the window. Theres a problem people have within themselves that permeates beyond their actions.
If someone claims they dont have a problem then it isnt up to me to change their mind. If someone says they do have a problem, then me telling them that they need to stop sinning isnt going to help them at all.
So in light of this, as a christian who believes he is holding to all of the bible, i have to disagree with you. If it claims to be a christian organization it shoudnt expel children who have "problems" it should try to help them actually take care of the real issue. And if the child doesnt think he has a problem, its kind of messed up for me to try and be the hand of god in convicting them
Like any organization, they want to promote people that share their values. The people have to demonstrate through action that they fit the mold the Boy Scouts are looking for. If a child, or leader is an atheist with no plans of changing that, how does accepting them into the club help the individual or the organization? Logically neither of them benefit, save to make some political point.
"If it claims to be a christian organization it shoudnt expel children..."
This is the same straw-man argument claiming Christians are supposed to be pacifists, turn the other cheek, etc. Christians are not pacifists, and are not commanded to accept people as they are. Christianity teaches tolerance. *Actual* tolerance. Not the redefined progressive tolerance which is code for acceptance and celebration. A Christian organization shouldn't have to accept or celebrate views antithetical to their organization's stated goals.
Ok, but what are christian values? Im just saying you dont have to think that being straight is a christian value in order to be a christian. As a christian organization i can understand not having a leader who is an athiest. But what the bible holds as vital is trust in god, not the ability to have control over our bodies and what we desire.
That isn't the message of the Torah, and by extension much of the old testament, and also disagrees with a significant portion of the New Testament epistles. Also it disagrees with a very large majority of Christian fathers and many of the influential leaders for much of Christendom. The prime dogma of the Christian faith is the acknowledgement of Christ and what he did, yes, but there is a very large portion of the Bible that talks about conduct in many facets of life.
On January 29 2013 14:25 Buff345 wrote: Ok, but what are christian values? Im just saying you dont have to think that being straight is a christian value in order to be a christian. As a christian organization i can understand not having a leader who is an athiest. But what the bible holds as vital is trust in god, not the ability to have control over our bodies and what we desire.
However, the Bible's stance on homosexuality is extremely clear cut. I was alluding to this before in that people want to cut and paste what they want into a new holy text. And our desires play a very strong role in determining sin also according to the Bible directly.
So, the main values of being a Christian are faith and love. Celebration, as stated before, is not a required part of either of those. Christians should choose to love homosexuals but that doesn't mean they have to celebrate them. My parents loved me but certainly didn't approve of everything I did.
On January 29 2013 14:27 FabledIntegral wrote: The only reason many Christians take such a firm stance against homosexuality is because it's one of the only sins in the Bible that they never have any urge to partake in.
Lame. We were having such a good conversation till this.
On January 29 2013 14:31 Foblos wrote: That isn't the message of the Torah, and by extension much of the old testament, and also disagrees with a significant portion of the New Testament epistles. Also it disagrees with a very large majority of Christian fathers and many of the influential leaders for much of Christendom.
I would ask for proof of your claims. They are broad and abstract so I would need refinement before passing judgement. Claiming that what we are saying disagrees with the New Testament is quite a claim so I would ask for evidence that we could discuss it further.
It would be me saying, "People don't like homosexuals because we are people." While quite right in a very broad sense, it's nothing to base an argument on.
On January 29 2013 14:31 Foblos wrote: That isn't the message of the Torah, and by extension much of the old testament, and also disagrees with a significant portion of the New Testament epistles. Also it disagrees with a very large majority of Christian fathers and many of the influential leaders for much of Christendom.
I would ask for proof of your claims. They are broad and abstract so I would need refinement before passing judgement. Claiming that what we are saying disagrees with the New Testament is quite a claim so I would ask for evidence that we could discuss it further.
It would be me saying, "People don't like homosexuals because we are people." While quite right in a very broad sense, it's nothing to base an argument on.
I think you misunderstand me. I was replying to the person I quoted, and specifically the bolded part. He claimed that the Bible only requires belief in God and does not ask us to learn to control sinful desires. I disagreed.
It's not a Christian value to be straight, yes. But it is a Christian value to not live a homosexual lifestyle. You'd have to ask someone inside the Boy Scouts, but I think their issue has been with openly gay people joining, not people who simply have some homosexual tendencies who otherwise aspire to embody all the values of the organization. They don't want people picking and choosing what they want to agree with. Example: you can't join the Boy Scouts and still act like or talk openly about how stupid it is to live the motto "Be Prepared".
On January 29 2013 14:31 Foblos wrote: That isn't the message of the Torah, and by extension much of the old testament, and also disagrees with a significant portion of the New Testament epistles. Also it disagrees with a very large majority of Christian fathers and many of the influential leaders for much of Christendom.
I would ask for proof of your claims. They are broad and abstract so I would need refinement before passing judgement. Claiming that what we are saying disagrees with the New Testament is quite a claim so I would ask for evidence that we could discuss it further.
It would be me saying, "People don't like homosexuals because we are people." While quite right in a very broad sense, it's nothing to base an argument on.
I think you misunderstand me. I was replying to the person I quoted, and specifically the bolded part. He claimed that the Bible only requires belief in God and does not ask us to learn to control sinful desires. I disagreed.
On January 29 2013 14:27 FabledIntegral wrote: The only reason many Christians take such a firm stance against homosexuality is because it's one of the only sins in the Bible that they never have any urge to partake in.
Lame. We were having such a good conversation till this.
I read the last 3 pages of conversation, and the comment was wholly relevant. In fact, it's even admitted (by you?) in particular at some point about how Christians (very generally speaking) fail to adhere to the beliefs themselves. Yet the vast majority seek to limit what homosexuals can do because of a very particular sin they commit. That one sin singles them out.
Is there any other "victimless" sin in the Bible singled out in our society as much as that one? I can't think of one off the top of my head, but there's little question that the reason it's singled out is due to the intense hypocrisy of the religious (generally speaking, once again).
Can a man say no? Yes. Can an animal? End of discussion. Damn that was hard to think through, eh?
Edit: don't know why I expect anything different from someone who in the same post says he follows higher power morals not realizing he's been taught all his morals by other humans and not God.
Ok, I'll bite. Lets suppose a man has a dolphin or bonobo. Both of which have sex for purposes other than reproducing. Is it ok for the man to have sex with the bonobo or dolphin as long as he doesn't force it to have sex with him? What if he bribes the bonobo or dolphin with food, and they're ok with it?
I know thats wierd (and its a decently stupid example, i think theres truth here), but I feel like there are so many situations that are hard to justify.
I don't think athiests are fine with that, but I could be wrong. One thing I do appreciate about atheism is that usually the people are critical thinkers.
LOL humping hydra, what an appropriate name .
But aside from that this recent discussion makes me wonder if there is any reasonable justification for...not liking homosexuals? Wanting to ban them from holding positions in your club? I guess that's what it comes down to.
Well I think there may be in terms of natural, inborn aversions to certain types of people. Like, certain individuals may dislike talking to fat people, because all of that blubber makes them uncomfortable for whatever reason (lol) - maybe its just disgusting to them, and they don't wan to look at all that flabbiness. Along the same vein, maybe its also reasonable for certain people to dislike gays, because there sexual preferences gives them a "freakish" nature that the others find disturbing.
So then, is it okay to discriminate against someone, or deny them access to the higher levels of your club? Would it be "moral" to look down upon a beautiful person's club, which does not allow ugly people to join? I feel like that's what could be going on here. Its a club, that among other things, promotes "straight" sexuality and a certain way of life because they think that the homosexual way of life is somewhat perverse or disturbing, so they keep it out of the club. Is it morally wrong for people to be disturbed (if they are)? I feel like the assumption is that, its okay to criticize them (Boy scouts) because they just have some bigoted attitudes against gays that aren't founded on anything except baseless hatred - or similarly, based in the perceived fantasy that is religion.
No man
you see
if you let these homosexuals into the boy scouts, they will convert everyone to the homosexual lifestyle, and they will have gay sex inside their tents, constantly
this is a plot by the gays and their homosexual agenda to trick people into thinking that homosexuals aren't deviants who spend every moment of their lives lusting after the same sex
this is what some people actually believe
Or more possibly cause members to lose faith in the institution of marriage or lose their faith in God or start disobeying their parents because of the influence of people that have made it very clear they do not share the values and goals of the club. What's the point of a club if everyone is allowed in? Then there would only be one club, Earth.
If you accept gays into the Boy Scouts, this will cause people to lose faith in marriage and God because
e: n/m out
If you spend time with people who reject your values, you might learn to reject them too? A radical concept! We must make note of this hypothesis!
On January 29 2013 14:25 Buff345 wrote: Ok, but what are christian values? Im just saying you dont have to think that being straight is a christian value in order to be a christian. As a christian organization i can understand not having a leader who is an athiest. But what the bible holds as vital is trust in god, not the ability to have control over our bodies and what we desire.
However, the Bible's stance on homosexuality is extremely clear cut. I was alluding to this before in that people want to cut and paste what they want into a new holy text. And our desires play a very strong role in determining sin also according to the Bible directly.
So, the main values of being a Christian are faith and love. Celebration, as stated before, is not a required part of either of those. Christians should choose to love homosexuals but that doesn't mean they have to celebrate them. My parents loved me but certainly didn't approve of everything I did.
I agree that its view on homosexuality is clear cut. But the bible also says that all things are lawful, just not expedient. In other words, being a homosexual might not lead you to the most fulfillment in your life, but god wont withhold mercy because you are.
The woman at the well had 5 husbands in the past, and the man she was staying with in the moment she met jesus wasnt even her husband at the time. Jesus didnt say your issue is that you are a whore and sleep around, he said you have a problem that nothing you have can quench what you really desire and i can help you.
My point is just that being a homosexual doesnt mean someone is automatically not a christian. And if i were running a christian organization i wouldnt stop someone from joining it because they are. That doesnt mean that BSA cant ban them and still be a christian organization, just that i personally dont think it is best. But obviously i dont care that much or i would be protesting i suppose.
I THINK we both agree on our personal worldviews at least somewhat, just im a bit more liberal in how i think christian organizations/clubs should interact with the public
On January 29 2013 14:36 wozzot wrote: If you accept gays into the Boy Scouts, this will cause people to lose faith in marriage and God because I can't believe people are still spouting this nonsense in 2013
I don't believe we are saying that in fact. We are more providing understanding to the concepts leading up to said decision. Marriage and God are being actively redefined and I expect it to continue for much time to come. Although, the only ideas we have left for marriage are bestial and incestuous. Age will also change I imagine as we keep rolling back the age of consent, which is still higher than years back when.
On January 29 2013 12:42 FeelingTookish wrote: I think it's a bit dehumanizing to wildly paint people who discourage the homosexual lifestyle (majority of the world, all of history I'm pretty sure) as "bigots", "ignorant", people who somehow "fear" homosexuals, and especially "hateful". These just aren't accurate. The vast majority of people don't go out of their way to condemn homosexuals as terrible people. They simply believe in the man-and-wife, white picket fence, bring-home-the-bacon kind of lifestyle and I don't think that's to be frowned upon.
The problem for me personally though is I have no idea why someone would think its better to be straight or to be gay. Like, how could someone think that one way of life is superior for someone else. I can understand if they are looking at their situation and are like, yo it would be way easier this way. But if the person with the controversial life enjoys living his life that way, then why would anyone else care?
I think thats how it is for most people. Unfortunately, i think people are assuming that the only way for someone to think someone else should live their life differently is because of religion. I dont know if thats true or not, but i know that not all religious people tell others to live their lives certain ways.
I personally think it is better to be a heterosexual. I totally recommend it. I think it's great and the best way to live. I also like 80's rock music, dubstep, and computer programming. I naturally want people to enjoy what I enjoy and dislike what I dislike. I discourage people from listening to the Beatles and driving a Prius. I encourage people to admire a Firebird Trans Am. I don't feel ashamed of this. I don't feel like a hateful person. Everyone thinks their own way of life is superior. Think of it like that when you see a white Christian man who'd rather not have homosexuals teaching his children that the way of life they've known is oppressive and backwards and ignorant.
Homosexuals aren't trying to convert you to gay.
Also, your religion is a choice. Even if you have been religious whole your live, you can still abandon it, like my gran did at old age. Your sexual preferences are not a choice. You cannot chose which person attracts you.
On January 29 2013 14:27 FabledIntegral wrote: The only reason many Christians take such a firm stance against homosexuality is because it's one of the only sins in the Bible that they never have any urge to partake in.
Lame. We were having such a good conversation till this.
I read the last 3 pages of conversation, and the comment was wholly relevant. In fact, it's even admitted (by you?) in particular at some point about how Christians (very generally speaking) fail to adhere to the beliefs themselves. Yet the vast majority seek to limit what homosexuals can do because of a very particular sin they commit. That one sin singles them out.
Is there any other "victimless" sin in the Bible singled out in our society as much as that one? I can't think of one off the top of my head, but there's little question that the reason it's singled out is due to the intense hypocrisy of the religious (generally speaking, once again).
The comment I responded to was simply trolling. Nothing more. If you wanted to have a debate on the concept of which you speak I would be willing.
On January 29 2013 12:42 FeelingTookish wrote: I think it's a bit dehumanizing to wildly paint people who discourage the homosexual lifestyle (majority of the world, all of history I'm pretty sure) as "bigots", "ignorant", people who somehow "fear" homosexuals, and especially "hateful". These just aren't accurate. The vast majority of people don't go out of their way to condemn homosexuals as terrible people. They simply believe in the man-and-wife, white picket fence, bring-home-the-bacon kind of lifestyle and I don't think that's to be frowned upon.
The problem for me personally though is I have no idea why someone would think its better to be straight or to be gay. Like, how could someone think that one way of life is superior for someone else. I can understand if they are looking at their situation and are like, yo it would be way easier this way. But if the person with the controversial life enjoys living his life that way, then why would anyone else care?
I think thats how it is for most people. Unfortunately, i think people are assuming that the only way for someone to think someone else should live their life differently is because of religion. I dont know if thats true or not, but i know that not all religious people tell others to live their lives certain ways.
I personally think it is better to be a heterosexual. I totally recommend it. I think it's great and the best way to live. I also like 80's rock music, dubstep, and computer programming. I naturally want people to enjoy what I enjoy and dislike what I dislike. I discourage people from listening to the Beatles and driving a Prius. I encourage people to admire a Firebird Trans Am. I don't feel ashamed of this. I don't feel like a hateful person. Everyone thinks their own way of life is superior. Think of it like that when you see a white Christian man who'd rather not have homosexuals teaching his children that the way of life they've known is oppressive and backwards and ignorant.
Homosexuals aren't trying to convert you to gay.
Also, your religion is a choice. Even if you have been religious whole your live, you can still abandon it, like my gran did at old age. Your sexual preferences are not a choice. You cannot chose which person attracts you.
Being white is not a choice. I cannot change my race. That doesn't stop the United Negro College Fund from discriminating against me. Are they evil for discriminating against me? Not at all. I don't fit their requirements, and it is perfectly natural to have them.
On January 29 2013 14:27 FabledIntegral wrote: The only reason many Christians take such a firm stance against homosexuality is because it's one of the only sins in the Bible that they never have any urge to partake in.
Lame. We were having such a good conversation till this.
I read the last 3 pages of conversation, and the comment was wholly relevant. In fact, it's even admitted (by you?) in particular at some point about how Christians (very generally speaking) fail to adhere to the beliefs themselves. Yet the vast majority seek to limit what homosexuals can do because of a very particular sin they commit. That one sin singles them out.
Is there any other "victimless" sin in the Bible singled out in our society as much as that one? I can't think of one off the top of my head, but there's little question that the reason it's singled out is due to the intense hypocrisy of the religious (generally speaking, once again).
Well, from a biblical perspective homosexuality isn't victimless. In fact, I think it is valid to interpret the text to say that homosexuality has a more egregious victim than other sins like stealing.
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23
The point, from a biblical perspective, is that it is a sin, and if you're the one practicing it you sin against yourself which is worse than sinning against others, and most importantly that sin earns you death like working a job earns you a paycheck. From that perspective, the immediate victim is the person doing it, even if they don't feel like a victim.
On January 29 2013 14:25 Buff345 wrote: Ok, but what are christian values? Im just saying you dont have to think that being straight is a christian value in order to be a christian. As a christian organization i can understand not having a leader who is an athiest. But what the bible holds as vital is trust in god, not the ability to have control over our bodies and what we desire.
However, the Bible's stance on homosexuality is extremely clear cut. I was alluding to this before in that people want to cut and paste what they want into a new holy text. And our desires play a very strong role in determining sin also according to the Bible directly.
So, the main values of being a Christian are faith and love. Celebration, as stated before, is not a required part of either of those. Christians should choose to love homosexuals but that doesn't mean they have to celebrate them. My parents loved me but certainly didn't approve of everything I did.
I agree that its view on homosexuality is clear cut. But the bible also says that all things are lawful, just not expedient. In other words, being a homosexual might not lead you to the most fulfillment in your life, but god wont withhold mercy because you are.
The woman at the well had 5 husbands in the past, and the man she was staying with in the moment she met jesus wasnt even her husband at the time. Jesus didnt say your issue is that you are a whore and sleep around, he said you have a problem that nothing you have can quench what you really desire and i can help you.
My point is just that being a homosexual doesnt mean someone is automatically not a christian. And if i were running a christian organization i wouldnt stop someone from joining it because they are. That doesnt mean that BSA cant ban them and still be a christian organization, just that i personally dont think it is best. But obviously i dont care that much or i would be protesting i suppose.
I THINK we both agree on our personal worldviews at least somewhat, just im a bit more liberal in how i think christian organizations/clubs should interact with the public
Agreed, but Jesus also forgave sins, something we cannot. He also gave declarations of, "go and sin no more." This concept, is of course of great debate... is there actually a need to stop sinning if grace is a gift? Can we be denied salvation only by a full turn away from God? I unfortunately don't remember the discussions I've had. (as it is late.) However, there is strong evidence on the notion of turning away from sin. So at what point do you enforce that? Or is it simply a God thing and we don't intervene? However, to openly welcome homosexuals into a church without an attempt at their change is almost a defiance of what the Bible says. It becomes acceptance and approval, not helping.
A difficult path it is... however I must retire as I am having problems typing. It was good chatting with everyone and I hope you all get a good night's sleep. Perhaps I'll look in on this topic tomorrow and see it explode to 50 pages. I may have to skim it then.
On January 29 2013 14:25 Buff345 wrote: Ok, but what are christian values? Im just saying you dont have to think that being straight is a christian value in order to be a christian. As a christian organization i can understand not having a leader who is an athiest. But what the bible holds as vital is trust in god, not the ability to have control over our bodies and what we desire.
However, the Bible's stance on homosexuality is extremely clear cut. I was alluding to this before in that people want to cut and paste what they want into a new holy text. And our desires play a very strong role in determining sin also according to the Bible directly.
So, the main values of being a Christian are faith and love. Celebration, as stated before, is not a required part of either of those. Christians should choose to love homosexuals but that doesn't mean they have to celebrate them. My parents loved me but certainly didn't approve of everything I did.
I agree that its view on homosexuality is clear cut. But the bible also says that all things are lawful, just not expedient. In other words, being a homosexual might not lead you to the most fulfillment in your life, but god wont withhold mercy because you are.
The woman at the well had 5 husbands in the past, and the man she was staying with in the moment she met jesus wasnt even her husband at the time. Jesus didnt say your issue is that you are a whore and sleep around, he said you have a problem that nothing you have can quench what you really desire and i can help you.
My point is just that being a homosexual doesnt mean someone is automatically not a christian. And if i were running a christian organization i wouldnt stop someone from joining it because they are. That doesnt mean that BSA cant ban them and still be a christian organization, just that i personally dont think it is best. But obviously i dont care that much or i would be protesting i suppose.
I THINK we both agree on our personal worldviews at least somewhat, just im a bit more liberal in how i think christian organizations/clubs should interact with the public
Agreed, but Jesus also forgave sins, something we cannot. He also gave declarations of, "go and sin no more." This concept, is of course of great debate... is there actually a need to stop sinning if grace is a gift? Can we be denied salvation only by a full turn away from God? I unfortunately don't remember the discussions I've had. (as it is late.) However, there is strong evidence on the notion of turning away from sin. So at what point do you enforce that? Or is it simply a God thing and we don't intervene? However, to openly welcome homosexuals into a church without an attempt at their change is almost a defiance of what the Bible says. It becomes acceptance and approval, not helping.
A difficult path it is... however I must retire as I am having problems typing. It was good chatting with everyone and I hope you all get a good night's sleep. Perhaps I'll look in on this topic tomorrow and see it explode to 50 pages. I may have to skim it then.
I think this is actually a great discussion that i think would eventually come down to "what is sin?" and would help a lot of peoples perception of christianity. But yea, its late this isnt the place. Time to go watch Thorzain
On January 29 2013 14:27 FabledIntegral wrote: The only reason many Christians take such a firm stance against homosexuality is because it's one of the only sins in the Bible that they never have any urge to partake in.
Lame. We were having such a good conversation till this.
I read the last 3 pages of conversation, and the comment was wholly relevant. In fact, it's even admitted (by you?) in particular at some point about how Christians (very generally speaking) fail to adhere to the beliefs themselves. Yet the vast majority seek to limit what homosexuals can do because of a very particular sin they commit. That one sin singles them out.
Is there any other "victimless" sin in the Bible singled out in our society as much as that one? I can't think of one off the top of my head, but there's little question that the reason it's singled out is due to the intense hypocrisy of the religious (generally speaking, once again).
Well, from a biblical perspective homosexuality isn't victimless. In fact, I think it is valid to interpret the text to say that homosexuality has a more egregious victim than other sins like stealing.
Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:8-10
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23
The point, from a biblical perspective, is that it is a sin, and if you're the one practicing it you sin against yourself which is worse than sinning against others, and most importantly that sin earns you death like working a job earns you a paycheck. From that perspective, the immediate victim is the person doing it, even if they don't feel like a victim.
The purpose of quoting victimless was to emphasize it being subjective. For example, murder is a "sin" universally accepted by society regardless of religious belief, because the result is a victim being murdered.
Thus, by "victimless" I meant the group of sins that do not result in observable harm. Sins that no one would naturally think were sins if it were not told to us. Homosexuality is above and beyond singled out from this group. There isn't anything else close (afaik).
On January 29 2013 14:36 wozzot wrote: If you accept gays into the Boy Scouts, this will cause people to lose faith in marriage and God because I can't believe people are still spouting this nonsense in 2013
I don't believe we are saying that in fact. We are more providing understanding to the concepts leading up to said decision. Marriage and God are being actively redefined and I expect it to continue for much time to come. Although, the only ideas we have left for marriage are bestial and incestuous. Age will also change I imagine as we keep rolling back the age of consent, which is still higher than years back when.
Which is why adult men were marrying 13 year olds right? >_> I just don't get how religions think they own the concept of marriage. Sure you own the concept of a christian marriage which is conceived a commitment between the couple and God but you don't own the overarching concept of marriage.
I'm a theology student at a top school with intention of joining the pastoral ministry.
I, like many serious Christians, do not believe that the Bible considers stable homosexual relationships to be inherently sinful. The Bible as such never deals with homosexuality as we know it. 1 Cor. 6 uses Greek words that indicate the dominant and submissive partners in Greek pederasty (sex between an older man and a boy in his teens). Yes, Paul is pretty down on pederasty. Christians should be too. It is not a "victimless crime," but involves real and clear damage.
Homosexuality as we now know it is not addressed in the Bible. Leviticus is talking about banned pagan temple practices. (Never mind that Jesus abrogates the OT purity code by saying "It is from within the heart" [not from outside the body] "that sin comes."
Jesus sums up the real meaning of "the law and the prophets" as love for God and for others, and gives as the basic rule of morality the Golden Rule: treat others as you would like to be treated. ALL sin in the Bible comes from failing to meet this command; all righteousness comes from fulfilling it. The law is NOT about this or that purity regulation. It is about living with love in your heart toward all, even your most bitter enemies.
[As a secondary aside, the BSA is not a Christian organization. I'm an Eagle Scout. It is an organization that demands some kind of religious adherence, but there are religious awards in the program for just about every faith out there. I earned the "God and Country" one for Protestants.]
On January 29 2013 14:27 FabledIntegral wrote: The only reason many Christians take such a firm stance against homosexuality is because it's one of the only sins in the Bible that they never have any urge to partake in.
Lame. We were having such a good conversation till this.
I read the last 3 pages of conversation, and the comment was wholly relevant. In fact, it's even admitted (by you?) in particular at some point about how Christians (very generally speaking) fail to adhere to the beliefs themselves. Yet the vast majority seek to limit what homosexuals can do because of a very particular sin they commit. That one sin singles them out.
Is there any other "victimless" sin in the Bible singled out in our society as much as that one? I can't think of one off the top of my head, but there's little question that the reason it's singled out is due to the intense hypocrisy of the religious (generally speaking, once again).
Well, from a biblical perspective homosexuality isn't victimless. In fact, I think it is valid to interpret the text to say that homosexuality has a more egregious victim than other sins like stealing.
Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:8-10
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23
The point, from a biblical perspective, is that it is a sin, and if you're the one practicing it you sin against yourself which is worse than sinning against others, and most importantly that sin earns you death like working a job earns you a paycheck. From that perspective, the immediate victim is the person doing it, even if they don't feel like a victim.
The purpose of quoting victimless was to emphasize it being subjective. For example, murder is a "sin" universally accepted by society regardless of religious belief, because the result is a victim being murdered.
Thus, by "victimless" I meant the group of sins that do not result in observable harm. Sins that no one would naturally think were sins if it were not told to us. Homosexuality is above and beyond singled out from this group. There isn't anything else close (afaik).
I think that I'll agree with you that some Christians go too far and hate homosexuals, which is not condoned or endorsed, and then you have hateful people who hide behind Christianity like the Westburo baptists, but I think the rhetoric behind the conversation that we (as Christians) are having is that the sexual sin is in a different category from your "standard" sins and perhaps require a different level of emphasis? I also wonder if it has something to do with what you said about certain sins being universal. If we claim to have the knowledge of God, and claim that there are certain things that please God and certain things that displease God there is little point in continually telling a society who thinks murder is sinful that murder is sinful. For a culture that believes murder is fine, I suspect Christianity would have that as a hot button topic like homosexuality is now. I will concede that I think many of the methods Christians adopt in trying to 'deal' with this isn't the best, but I do think it is a necessary conversation to have as long as we (as Christians) desire to proclaim the good news of Christ and him crucified.
I, like many serious Christians, do not believe that the Bible considers stable homosexual relationships to be inherently sinful. The Bible as such never deals with homosexuality as we know it. 1 Cor. 6 uses Greek words that indicate the dominant and submissive partners in Greek pederasty (sex between an older man and a boy in his teens). Yes, Paul is pretty down on pederasty. Christians should be too. It is not a "victimless crime," but involves real and clear damage.
Didn't know that. I even went and checked the greek, and then double checked it against my lexicon. Guess I'll need to pull that one from my examples and chew on that as food for thought.
On January 29 2013 14:27 FabledIntegral wrote: The only reason many Christians take such a firm stance against homosexuality is because it's one of the only sins in the Bible that they never have any urge to partake in.
Lame. We were having such a good conversation till this.
I read the last 3 pages of conversation, and the comment was wholly relevant. In fact, it's even admitted (by you?) in particular at some point about how Christians (very generally speaking) fail to adhere to the beliefs themselves. Yet the vast majority seek to limit what homosexuals can do because of a very particular sin they commit. That one sin singles them out.
Is there any other "victimless" sin in the Bible singled out in our society as much as that one? I can't think of one off the top of my head, but there's little question that the reason it's singled out is due to the intense hypocrisy of the religious (generally speaking, once again).
Well, from a biblical perspective homosexuality isn't victimless. In fact, I think it is valid to interpret the text to say that homosexuality has a more egregious victim than other sins like stealing.
Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:8-10
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23
The point, from a biblical perspective, is that it is a sin, and if you're the one practicing it you sin against yourself which is worse than sinning against others, and most importantly that sin earns you death like working a job earns you a paycheck. From that perspective, the immediate victim is the person doing it, even if they don't feel like a victim.
The purpose of quoting victimless was to emphasize it being subjective. For example, murder is a "sin" universally accepted by society regardless of religious belief, because the result is a victim being murdered.
Thus, by "victimless" I meant the group of sins that do not result in observable harm. Sins that no one would naturally think were sins if it were not told to us. Homosexuality is above and beyond singled out from this group. There isn't anything else close (afaik).
I think that I'll agree with you that some Christians go too far and hate homosexuals, which is not condoned or endorsed, and then you have hateful people who hide behind Christianity like the Westburo baptists, but I think the rhetoric behind the conversation that we (as Christians) are having is that the sexual sin is in a different category from your "standard" sins and perhaps require a different level of emphasis? I also wonder if it has something to do with what you said about certain sins being universal. If we claim to have the knowledge of God, and claim that there are certain things that please God and certain things that displease God there is little point in continually telling a society who thinks murder is sinful that murder is sinful. For a culture that believes murder is fine, I suspect Christianity would have that as a hot button topic like homosexuality is now. I will concede that I think many of the methods Christians adopt in trying to 'deal' with this isn't the best, but I do think it is a necessary conversation to have as long as we (as Christians) desire to proclaim the good news of Christ and him crucified.
I, like many serious Christians, do not believe that the Bible considers stable homosexual relationships to be inherently sinful. The Bible as such never deals with homosexuality as we know it. 1 Cor. 6 uses Greek words that indicate the dominant and submissive partners in Greek pederasty (sex between an older man and a boy in his teens). Yes, Paul is pretty down on pederasty. Christians should be too. It is not a "victimless crime," but involves real and clear damage.
Didn't know that. I even went and checked the greek, and then double checked it against my lexicon. Guess I'll need to pull that one from my examples and chew on that as food for thought.
Yes, the main point is that for some reason Christians seem to focus on homosexuality. The point I'm making is that it is because most Christians themselves do not experience any of the urges of homosexuality, so it is extremely easy to vilify it. At the same time, they do experience lust and have temptation towards the majority of all the other sins. As such, it is not as easy to openly condemn in masse when so many participate in it themselves. Sure, it's looked down upon, but it's not even remotely comparable to homosexuality. I question your comment that homosexuality is somehow in a different category than your "standard" sins? Unless you're saying that's what my rhetoric was implying, which was not my intention.
At the same time, while your murder argument would most likely hold true, I don't quite see the relevance. Despite the fact murder is generally seen as intrinsically wrong (although many view it as necessary and do it within remorse), I could not imagine that most sane people could ever conclude homosexuality is inherently wrong without being explicitly told it was. But throwing that out the window and going with your theoretical scenario for the sake of argument, the relevance of victim vs victimless sin is still present. With murder, there is a clear victim. With homosexuality, there is no apparent victim. There is no evidence that suggests there is a victim. The only thing you can even base an argument on that there is a victim is that you are told by God that the person engaging in the homosexual act is a victim.
the invective against homosexuality in the new testament is just pseudo-Paul slandering Roman sexual mores. This should be obvious to anybody who has thought about the political situation in which those texts were written.
edit: anybody with two brain cells should be able to see that there's no way that the essence of Jesus' teaching is compatible with homophobia.
Things like this always bother me. A lot of hooplah for something that's imaginary. People shouldn't be questioning whether the bible detests homosexuality or not it should be questioning the foundation of the whole thing.
On January 29 2013 14:27 FabledIntegral wrote: The only reason many Christians take such a firm stance against homosexuality is because it's one of the only sins in the Bible that they never have any urge to partake in.
Lame. We were having such a good conversation till this.
I read the last 3 pages of conversation, and the comment was wholly relevant. In fact, it's even admitted (by you?) in particular at some point about how Christians (very generally speaking) fail to adhere to the beliefs themselves. Yet the vast majority seek to limit what homosexuals can do because of a very particular sin they commit. That one sin singles them out.
Is there any other "victimless" sin in the Bible singled out in our society as much as that one? I can't think of one off the top of my head, but there's little question that the reason it's singled out is due to the intense hypocrisy of the religious (generally speaking, once again).
Well, from a biblical perspective homosexuality isn't victimless. In fact, I think it is valid to interpret the text to say that homosexuality has a more egregious victim than other sins like stealing.
Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:8-10
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23
The point, from a biblical perspective, is that it is a sin, and if you're the one practicing it you sin against yourself which is worse than sinning against others, and most importantly that sin earns you death like working a job earns you a paycheck. From that perspective, the immediate victim is the person doing it, even if they don't feel like a victim.
The purpose of quoting victimless was to emphasize it being subjective. For example, murder is a "sin" universally accepted by society regardless of religious belief, because the result is a victim being murdered.
Thus, by "victimless" I meant the group of sins that do not result in observable harm. Sins that no one would naturally think were sins if it were not told to us. Homosexuality is above and beyond singled out from this group. There isn't anything else close (afaik).
I think that I'll agree with you that some Christians go too far and hate homosexuals, which is not condoned or endorsed, and then you have hateful people who hide behind Christianity like the Westburo baptists, but I think the rhetoric behind the conversation that we (as Christians) are having is that the sexual sin is in a different category from your "standard" sins and perhaps require a different level of emphasis? I also wonder if it has something to do with what you said about certain sins being universal. If we claim to have the knowledge of God, and claim that there are certain things that please God and certain things that displease God there is little point in continually telling a society who thinks murder is sinful that murder is sinful. For a culture that believes murder is fine, I suspect Christianity would have that as a hot button topic like homosexuality is now. I will concede that I think many of the methods Christians adopt in trying to 'deal' with this isn't the best, but I do think it is a necessary conversation to have as long as we (as Christians) desire to proclaim the good news of Christ and him crucified.
I, like many serious Christians, do not believe that the Bible considers stable homosexual relationships to be inherently sinful. The Bible as such never deals with homosexuality as we know it. 1 Cor. 6 uses Greek words that indicate the dominant and submissive partners in Greek pederasty (sex between an older man and a boy in his teens). Yes, Paul is pretty down on pederasty. Christians should be too. It is not a "victimless crime," but involves real and clear damage.
Didn't know that. I even went and checked the greek, and then double checked it against my lexicon. Guess I'll need to pull that one from my examples and chew on that as food for thought.
Yes, the main point is that for some reason Christians seem to focus on homosexuality. The point I'm making is that it is because most Christians themselves do not experience any of the urges of homosexuality, so it is extremely easy to vilify it. At the same time, they do experience lust and have temptation towards the majority of all the other sins. As such, it is not as easy to openly condemn in masse when so many participate in it themselves. Sure, it's looked down upon, but it's not even remotely comparable to homosexuality. I question your comment that homosexuality is somehow in a different category than your "standard" sins? Unless you're saying that's what my rhetoric was implying, which was not my intention.
At the same time, while your murder argument would most likely hold true, I don't quite see the relevance. Despite the fact murder is generally seen as intrinsically wrong (although many view it as necessary and do it within remorse), I could not imagine that most sane people could ever conclude homosexuality is inherently wrong without being explicitly told it was. But throwing that out the window and going with your theoretical scenario for the sake of argument, the relevance of victim vs victimless sin is still present. With murder, there is a clear victim. With homosexuality, there is no apparent victim. There is no evidence that suggests there is a victim. The only thing you can even base an argument on that there is a victim is that you are told by God that the person engaging in the homosexual act is a victim.
Firstly I just want to acknowledge that some Christians do indeed struggle with homosexuality. I had the opportunity to speak with a man at great length and he disclosed to me that he was gay, though he didn't practice homosexuality was desired greatly to get away from it. Though not relevant to this conversation, in case you're wondering I was simply supportive and didn't try to bash him into a straight life.
Secondly, when I classified sexual sins as being in another category, it was just because in the Bible Paul says that the sexually immoral sins against oneself. I think that is a different class than sinning against someone else, for better or for worse.
I will concede that I'm have an extremely difficult time arguing against the victimless sin argument (perhaps except drunkenness...maybe) so I'm going to have to think about that much more. If, as a Christian, I believe that I've been entrusted with the knowledge of eternal life - full, eternal life - and I earnestly believe that actively practicing homosexuality unrepentantly will render someone unable to receive that gift I think I have an obligation to have the discussion. I do think the way Christians are currently having the discussion is...lacking, but to refuse to have the conversation is, in my mind, essentially declaring that I hate someone so much that I know how they can be saved and I'd rather watch them die. Christians claim to have the revealed word of God, and if God reveals within his word that any sexual sin does victimize the person who is doing it, I think it is my obligation to express that as well. But lovingly.
On January 29 2013 16:29 RodrigoX wrote: Things like this always bother me. A lot of hooplah for something that's imaginary. People shouldn't be questioning whether the bible detests homosexuality or not it should be questioning the foundation of the whole thing.
We (Theologians) do. There are several fields including literary criticism, textual criticism, historical criticism etc where the purpose is to dig behind the face value of the text and ascertain if Mark really did write the gospel, or if and when events in the Bible took place.
On January 29 2013 14:27 FabledIntegral wrote: The only reason many Christians take such a firm stance against homosexuality is because it's one of the only sins in the Bible that they never have any urge to partake in.
Lame. We were having such a good conversation till this.
I read the last 3 pages of conversation, and the comment was wholly relevant. In fact, it's even admitted (by you?) in particular at some point about how Christians (very generally speaking) fail to adhere to the beliefs themselves. Yet the vast majority seek to limit what homosexuals can do because of a very particular sin they commit. That one sin singles them out.
Is there any other "victimless" sin in the Bible singled out in our society as much as that one? I can't think of one off the top of my head, but there's little question that the reason it's singled out is due to the intense hypocrisy of the religious (generally speaking, once again).
Well, from a biblical perspective homosexuality isn't victimless. In fact, I think it is valid to interpret the text to say that homosexuality has a more egregious victim than other sins like stealing.
Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:8-10
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23
The point, from a biblical perspective, is that it is a sin, and if you're the one practicing it you sin against yourself which is worse than sinning against others, and most importantly that sin earns you death like working a job earns you a paycheck. From that perspective, the immediate victim is the person doing it, even if they don't feel like a victim.
The purpose of quoting victimless was to emphasize it being subjective. For example, murder is a "sin" universally accepted by society regardless of religious belief, because the result is a victim being murdered.
Thus, by "victimless" I meant the group of sins that do not result in observable harm. Sins that no one would naturally think were sins if it were not told to us. Homosexuality is above and beyond singled out from this group. There isn't anything else close (afaik).
I think that I'll agree with you that some Christians go too far and hate homosexuals, which is not condoned or endorsed, and then you have hateful people who hide behind Christianity like the Westburo baptists, but I think the rhetoric behind the conversation that we (as Christians) are having is that the sexual sin is in a different category from your "standard" sins and perhaps require a different level of emphasis? I also wonder if it has something to do with what you said about certain sins being universal. If we claim to have the knowledge of God, and claim that there are certain things that please God and certain things that displease God there is little point in continually telling a society who thinks murder is sinful that murder is sinful. For a culture that believes murder is fine, I suspect Christianity would have that as a hot button topic like homosexuality is now. I will concede that I think many of the methods Christians adopt in trying to 'deal' with this isn't the best, but I do think it is a necessary conversation to have as long as we (as Christians) desire to proclaim the good news of Christ and him crucified.
I, like many serious Christians, do not believe that the Bible considers stable homosexual relationships to be inherently sinful. The Bible as such never deals with homosexuality as we know it. 1 Cor. 6 uses Greek words that indicate the dominant and submissive partners in Greek pederasty (sex between an older man and a boy in his teens). Yes, Paul is pretty down on pederasty. Christians should be too. It is not a "victimless crime," but involves real and clear damage.
Didn't know that. I even went and checked the greek, and then double checked it against my lexicon. Guess I'll need to pull that one from my examples and chew on that as food for thought.
Yes, the main point is that for some reason Christians seem to focus on homosexuality. The point I'm making is that it is because most Christians themselves do not experience any of the urges of homosexuality, so it is extremely easy to vilify it. At the same time, they do experience lust and have temptation towards the majority of all the other sins. As such, it is not as easy to openly condemn in masse when so many participate in it themselves. Sure, it's looked down upon, but it's not even remotely comparable to homosexuality. I question your comment that homosexuality is somehow in a different category than your "standard" sins? Unless you're saying that's what my rhetoric was implying, which was not my intention.
At the same time, while your murder argument would most likely hold true, I don't quite see the relevance. Despite the fact murder is generally seen as intrinsically wrong (although many view it as necessary and do it within remorse), I could not imagine that most sane people could ever conclude homosexuality is inherently wrong without being explicitly told it was. But throwing that out the window and going with your theoretical scenario for the sake of argument, the relevance of victim vs victimless sin is still present. With murder, there is a clear victim. With homosexuality, there is no apparent victim. There is no evidence that suggests there is a victim. The only thing you can even base an argument on that there is a victim is that you are told by God that the person engaging in the homosexual act is a victim.
Firstly I just want to acknowledge that some Christians do indeed struggle with homosexuality. I had the opportunity to speak with a man at great length and he disclosed to me that he was gay, though he didn't practice homosexuality was desired greatly to get away from it. Though not relevant to this conversation, in case you're wondering I was simply supportive and didn't try to bash him into a straight life.
Secondly, when I classified sexual sins as being in another category, it was just because in the Bible Paul says that the sexually immoral sins against oneself. I think that is a different class than sinning against someone else, for better or for worse.
I will concede that I'm have an extremely difficult time arguing against the victimless sin argument (perhaps except drunkenness...maybe) so I'm going to have to think about that much more. If, as a Christian, I believe that I've been entrusted with the knowledge of eternal life - full, eternal life - and I earnestly believe that actively practicing homosexuality unrepentantly will render someone unable to receive that gift I think I have an obligation to have the discussion. I do think the way Christians are currently having the discussion is...lacking, but to refuse to have the conversation is, in my mind, essentially declaring that I hate someone so much that I know how they can be saved and I'd rather watch them die. Christians claim to have the revealed word of God, and if God reveals within his word that any sexual sin does victimize the person who is doing it, I think it is my obligation to express that as well. But lovingly.
There's a reason throughout all my posts I've used phrases such as "most" and "generally." I'm fully aware that some Christians struggle. Personally, I think it's a pity, and it's only self-damaging and leading to a more miserable existence.
And my point was focusing generally on the sexual sins. Of all of them, homosexuality seems to be the only one that is singled out to the degree it is. All the other ones are not seemingly any less sinful, yet are much more excepted and tolerated.
You also fail to make the argument why practicing of homosexuality in particular will deny someone eternal life. Does the one who engages in premarital sex unrepentantly, as you so put it, and then dies before marriage be deprived of eternal life? I'd take a guess that probably a minority of Christians now are virgins before marriage (pulling the number from my ass). A large portion of those most likely had no reservations in doing so and would continue to do so. If they never get married before death.... for whatever reasons, they're condemned too?
So many things, seemingly arbitrary, are evil because we're told. You'd think if these sins were inherently evil it would be ingrained in us. It would "make sense." But it clearly doesn't make sense. Nothing about it is intrinsic. Sad, if you ask me.
However, addressing the argument on the last page about Christianity and homophobia, from what I saw, it has more to do with the rise of civilization rather than Christianity itself.
In Athens, pederasty was legal but there was a opposition to it and adult male on male homosexuality was generally frowned upon, especially if you were the receiving person. In Rome, it was on and off and there are interesting stories about it.
In Japan, homosexuality was a significant part of the culture until it was outlawed in the Meiji Era and gay rights is rarely brought up in the modern era, but the LDP opposes it.
Chairman Mao and Stalin opposed homosexuality and called it a corruption of the West and the Nepalese Maoists said that in a socialist society, there would be no need for homosexuality to exist and Engles did not speak well of it either and we know that those guys are not exactly religious people.
I could give more and more examples, but in the end, I doubt that homophobia would have been erased if religion did not exist at all.
People need to stop acting like everything is just an ideology problem, people can believe in only the most resonable beliefs and still be obtuse jackasses to others and their choices.
The BSA should have the right to have to full control over who gets to achieve what rank or even be in their organization. If they want to exclude gays, or asians, or californians, it's their right to do so.
And it is our right to criticise them for it.
That they get public funding sounds ridiculous to me, but with the US giving tax exemptions to even to scientology it doesn't seem surprising.
On January 29 2013 16:31 sam!zdat wrote: You think Imaginary things are not important?
Santa Claus is imaginary, why aren't we trying to placate him with human sacrifice? Imaginary things, like comics, literature, our fundamental creative thinking process etc, are all immensely important. They become dangerous when they are accredited importance beyond their due. I like Spiderman, I don't think he's real and I don't think he's going to save the world from climate change. Some people think whatever deity they worship will do this. This is dangerous and counter-productive thinking, expecting our imagination to affect the real world is something we have to grow out of at some stage.
On January 29 2013 16:31 sam!zdat wrote: You think Imaginary things are not important?
Santa Claus is imaginary, why aren't we trying to placate him with human sacrifice? Imaginary things, like comics, literature, our fundamental creative thinking process etc, are all immensely important. They become dangerous when they are accredited importance beyond their due. I like Spiderman, I don't think he's real and I don't think he's going to save the world from climate change. Some people think whatever deity they worship will do this. This is dangerous and counter-productive thinking, expecting our imagination to affect the real world is something we have to grow out of at some stage.
How awesome would it be if there was a comic where spiderman fought climate change.
More on topic it doesn't require a deity for people believe in complete nonsense as evidenced by the heaps of pseudoscientific nonsense floating about the internet. A deity just acts as an excuse that society is more accepting of.
On January 29 2013 16:31 sam!zdat wrote: You think Imaginary things are not important?
Santa Claus is imaginary, why aren't we trying to placate him with human sacrifice? Imaginary things, like comics, literature, our fundamental creative thinking process etc, are all immensely important. They become dangerous when they are accredited importance beyond their due. I like Spiderman, I don't think he's real and I don't think he's going to save the world from climate change. Some people think whatever deity they worship will do this. This is dangerous and counter-productive thinking, expecting our imagination to affect the real world is something we have to grow out of at some stage.
How awesome would it be if there was a comic where spiderman fought climate change.
More on topic it doesn't require a deity for people believe in complete nonsense as evidenced by the heaps of pseudoscientific nonsense floating about the internet. A deity just acts as an excuse that society is more accepting of.
Sure, but it all stems from the same basic principle, substituting reality with our own version of it, whether it's Jesus, Allah, Yahweh, Scientology, junk science etc. The problem is, reality really doesn't give it a shit, and doesn't become less real because we choose to believe otherwise.
Having a vivid imagination and being an idiot are often mutually exclusive I've found, so I don't understand your point. Mine was that while our imagination is one the most important attributes we have, it becomes dangerous when we are unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality.
But I suppose the petulant, puerile attitude whenever religion is held to the same standard as every other claim is to be expected by now. I am willing to objectively analyze any evidence for any claim. Just bring it on.
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future.Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future.Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future.Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future.Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Please don't forget scouting is not just American, it's a worldwide organisation.
There are 28 million scouts worldwide - and growing. There are only 6 countries, out of 222 that do not have a scout organisation. This of course includes countries of ALL religions. There are MORE Muslim scouts than Christian Scouts. It is not an organisation that is unwilling to change or stuck in the past (despite what the BSA might try to say); for instance they now take girls as well. UK scouting has been open to LGBT for many years. I could point out Baden Powell was British and some historians believe he may have been gay himself.
Its a fantastic organisation, in my opinion, that does a lot of good work for young people. It that helps kids from all backgrounds to do exciting activities and learn to achieve goals outside of school. Please don't paint every group with the same brush.
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future.Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future.Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
Reproducing has nothing to do with this topic and there will never be a time where the whole world is gay and we will become extinct. This is more about if I like to eat only oranges and hated apple-- where my membership is deny because of my personal preference.
The problem is that people let their religion decide if homosexuality is right or wrong. Instead of studying the evidence of evolution. It's basically relying on a short answer. (a similar analogy would be to study material from wikipedia the day before the exam instead of studying the whole material in the textbook)
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future.Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
Reproducing has nothing to do with this topic and there will never be a time where the whole world is gay and we will become extinct. This is more about if I like to eat only oranges and hated apple-- where my membership is deny because of my personal preference.
I was answering a question. You're right, there may never be a time where the entire world is homosexual. However, realistically homosexuality stops reproduction which is why it's wrong. Also, just because it's your personal preference doesn't mean it's right and that you should be allowed to just because your personal preference states otherwise.
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future.Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
Reproducing has nothing to do with this topic and there will never be a time where the whole world is gay and we will become extinct. This is more about if I like to eat only oranges and hated apple-- where my membership is deny because of my personal preference.
I was answering a question. You're right, there may never be a time where the entire world is homosexual. However, realistically homosexuality stops reproduction which is why it's wrong. Also, just because it's your personal preference doesn't mean it's right and that you should be allowed to just because your personal preference states otherwise.
Nature requires that not every animal reproduce, so why does the lack of reproductive ability make homosexuality wrong again?
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future.Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
Reproducing has nothing to do with this topic and there will never be a time where the whole world is gay and we will become extinct. This is more about if I like to eat only oranges and hated apple-- where my membership is deny because of my personal preference.
I was answering a question. You're right, there may never be a time where the entire world is homosexual. However, realistically homosexuality stops reproduction which is why it's wrong. Also, just because it's your personal preference doesn't mean it's right and that you should be allowed to just because your personal preference states otherwise.
How does it stop reproduction if a lot of gay people would choose not to reproduce regardless due to their lack of attraction to women?
Also when has sex ever been solely about reproduction. To be logically consistent and not just rampantly homophobic you'd have to ban anyone who doesn't end any sexual encounter without sperm inside the womans vagina.
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future.Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
Reproducing has nothing to do with this topic and there will never be a time where the whole world is gay and we will become extinct. This is more about if I like to eat only oranges and hated apple-- where my membership is deny because of my personal preference.
I was answering a question. You're right, there may never be a time where the entire world is homosexual. However, realistically homosexuality stops reproduction which is why it's wrong. Also, just because it's your personal preference doesn't mean it's right and that you should be allowed to just because your personal preference states otherwise.
Some people are attracted to the same sex. Homosexual behavior has been observed in animals. Have you ever considered that a genetic setup that would make a man gay would make a woman a better mother?
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future.Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
Reproducing has nothing to do with this topic and there will never be a time where the whole world is gay and we will become extinct. This is more about if I like to eat only oranges and hated apple-- where my membership is deny because of my personal preference.
I was answering a question. You're right, there may never be a time where the entire world is homosexual. However, realistically homosexuality stops reproduction which is why it's wrong. Also, just because it's your personal preference doesn't mean it's right and that you should be allowed to just because your personal preference states otherwise.
Not having sex stops reproduction too, so all of the adults who are virgins are just as bad as the homosexuals then?
I'd say stopping reproduction is a big plus in my book. I think we should encourage more people to be homosexual, that way we can solve the population problem.
On January 30 2013 04:10 KAB00000000M wrote: The problem is that people let their religion decide if homosexuality is right or wrong. Instead of studying the evidence of evolution.
studying evolution tells you absolutely nothing about right and wrong
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future.Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future.Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
Reproducing has nothing to do with this topic and there will never be a time where the whole world is gay and we will become extinct. This is more about if I like to eat only oranges and hated apple-- where my membership is deny because of my personal preference.
I was answering a question. You're right, there may never be a time where the entire world is homosexual. However, realistically homosexuality stops reproduction which is why it's wrong. Also, just because it's your personal preference doesn't mean it's right and that you should be allowed to just because your personal preference states otherwise.
This just in, uncontrollable population growth is a good thing.
There are many things that can stop reproduction. Are they all wrong? Is an awkward person who has never had sex in his life wrong? Is someone who can't find the right heterosexual partner in order to reproduce wrong? Is a heterosexual couple who decides not to have children wrong?
Your argument makes no sense. Unless you want to contest that all the cases above are morally wrong, you just don't like homosexuals and are looking for an argument to justify it.
And yes, just because it's someone's personal preference does mean it's right for them, and they should be allowed to exercise that preference. Obviously, as long as it is between consensual adults. What right do you have to tell other people how to live their lives? It doesn't affect you in the slightest.
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future.Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future.Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
Kids are not like monkeys, and if a parent treats them as such, they deserve to have shit flung in their face. Gay men kissing do not owe shitty parents anything.
On January 30 2013 04:24 sam!zdat wrote: I'd say stopping reproduction is a big plus in my book. I think we should encourage more people to be homosexual, that way we can solve the population problem.
On January 30 2013 04:10 KAB00000000M wrote: The problem is that people let their religion decide if homosexuality is right or wrong. Instead of studying the evidence of evolution.
studying evolution tells you absolutely nothing about right and wrong
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future.Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future.Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
Explain in detail why kids are more like monkeys "these days" than in the past. I'd love to hear your detailed explanation.
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future.Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
Reproducing has nothing to do with this topic and there will never be a time where the whole world is gay and we will become extinct. This is more about if I like to eat only oranges and hated apple-- where my membership is deny because of my personal preference.
I was answering a question. You're right, there may never be a time where the entire world is homosexual. However, realistically homosexuality stops reproduction which is why it's wrong. Also, just because it's your personal preference doesn't mean it's right and that you should be allowed to just because your personal preference states otherwise.
This just in, uncontrollable population growth is a good thing.
There are many things that can stop reproduction. Are they all wrong? Is an awkward person who has never had sex in his life wrong? Is someone who can't find the right heterosexual partner in order to reproduce wrong? Is a heterosexual couple who decides not to have children wrong?
Your argument makes no sense. Unless you want to contest that all the cases above are morally wrong, you just don't like homosexuals and are looking for an argument to justify it.
And yes, just because it's someone's personal preference does mean it's right for them, and they should be allowed to exercise that preference. Obviously, as long as it is between consensual adults. What right do you have to tell other people how to live their lives? It doesn't affect you in the slightest.
Only to somebody who's bias regardless of what the truth is would say that my "argument doesn't make sense". Sure there are a widespread of things that can prevent reproduction but none of them hold a candle to my analogy. It's just the truth, accept it for what it is and move on. I don't have a problem with homosexuals at all. Also, where did I try to tell them how to live their lives? You speak of two consensual adults -- I have no problem with that. We're talking about "boy" scouts, that's where the problem lies.
On January 30 2013 04:24 sam!zdat wrote: I'd say stopping reproduction is a big plus in my book. I think we should encourage more people to be homosexual, that way we can solve the population problem.
On January 30 2013 04:10 KAB00000000M wrote: The problem is that people let their religion decide if homosexuality is right or wrong. Instead of studying the evidence of evolution.
studying evolution tells you absolutely nothing about right and wrong
Neither does religon
So what does, then?
Your brain. The ability to relate to someone. I feel it is wrong to hurt somebody because it causes me pain when other people hurt me. I feel it is wrong to steal from somebody because it pisses me off when people steal things from me. Right and wrong is all relative of course, but to me those things are wrong and most people would probably agree with those things being wrong. I am a married man, if someone told me I can't marry my wife because of her sex I'd tell them to go fuck themself, I don't hear any reasonable explanation for why gay people shouldn't marry. The closest one I have heard is that you can't reproduce by having gay sex but that's stupid because you can't reproduce by masturbating (also a sin) or abstaining (encouraged).
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future.Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
Explain in detail why kids are more like monkeys "these days" than in the past. I'd love to hear your detailed explanation.
Simple. Who do kids try to emulate when their younger or older for that matter? Celebrities, Athletes, Musicians, Reality show divas, etc. Kids were the same way in the past. Maybe I should have clarified a little better. But regardless, you get what I'm trying to say.
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future.Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
Explain in detail why kids are more like monkeys "these days" than in the past. I'd love to hear your detailed explanation.
Simple. Who do kids try to emulate when their younger or older for that matter? Celebrities, Athletes, Musicians, Reality show divas, etc.
Celebrities, atheletes, and musicians have existed for a long time. You're not convincing me at all here. You're saying kids have role models. I knew that part already.
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future.Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
Sans social pressures to conform, seeing others having heterosexual or homosexual relationships or affection doesn't change your sexuality. Any young boy who might think they were gay for seeing two men kiss would likely find it quite unsatisfactory when he kisses another boy. Let us not forget though that most youngsters aren't actively engaging in heterosexual relationships either, even though public displays of affection have been the norm for a long time.
I really don't think segregation would be the best move--nor worth the effort. It'd probably be hard to have an all-gay scout group, since there's presumably far less homosexual (or homosexual identified youngsters) than heterosexual participants.
On January 30 2013 02:32 BlazeFury01 wrote: [quote] Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
Explain in detail why kids are more like monkeys "these days" than in the past. I'd love to hear your detailed explanation.
Simple. Who do kids try to emulate when their younger or older for that matter? Celebrities, Athletes, Musicians, Reality show divas, etc.
Celebrities, atheletes, and musicians have existed for a long time. You're not convincing me at all here. You're saying kids have role models. I knew that part already.
I changed my post before you posted. Also, convincing you is like a democrat trying to convince a republican, it won't happen. Because you already had your mind made up before I even posted.
On January 30 2013 04:24 sam!zdat wrote: I'd say stopping reproduction is a big plus in my book. I think we should encourage more people to be homosexual, that way we can solve the population problem.
On January 30 2013 04:10 KAB00000000M wrote: The problem is that people let their religion decide if homosexuality is right or wrong. Instead of studying the evidence of evolution.
studying evolution tells you absolutely nothing about right and wrong
Yes exactly. You are focusing on what is right or wrong. That's absolutely not the point. The point is to understand how things are the way they are. Instead of asking why - which in most cases makes the right or wrong direction.
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future.Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
Kids are not like monkeys, and if a parent treats them as such, they deserve to have shit flung in their face. Gay men kissing do not owe shitty parents anything.
I'm not talking about how a parent treats them, I'm talking about their mentality to copy what say see an what he/she thinks is cool. I actually heard people say in mid and high school that being gay was "cool" and straight kids tried it because it was the "thing to do" so to say.
On January 30 2013 03:16 Arghmyliver wrote: [quote]
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
Explain in detail why kids are more like monkeys "these days" than in the past. I'd love to hear your detailed explanation.
Simple. Who do kids try to emulate when their younger or older for that matter? Celebrities, Athletes, Musicians, Reality show divas, etc.
Celebrities, atheletes, and musicians have existed for a long time. You're not convincing me at all here. You're saying kids have role models. I knew that part already.
I changed my post before you posted. Also, convincing you is like a democrat trying to convince a republican, it won't happen. Because you already had your mind made up before I even posted.
I'm really just trying to find out why you said "kids these days". I've always hated that phrase because people can never back up what they mean when they say it, people throw that out all the time yet when you ask them about it, they never have an answer. This is the first time I got political talk from it though, amusing.
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future.Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
Kids are not like monkeys, and if a parent treats them as such, they deserve to have shit flung in their face. Gay men kissing do not owe shitty parents anything.
I'm not talking about how a parent treats them, I'm talking about their mentality to copy what say see an what he/she thinks is cool. I actually heard people say in mid and high school that being gay was "cool" and straight kids tried it because it was the "thing to do" so to say.
A teenager's sexual confusion is no justification for the different treatment of homosexuals. If a child has grown up with the notion that his sexual identity is some sort of plaything, I cannot dismiss such a notion out of hand but can only chalk such a thing up to the environment he/she comes from; an environment in which parents are the ones with the most influence.
If Christ would chill with prostitutes and tax collectors, he'd chill with gay people too. Homophobia is a complete perversion of the teachings of Christ.
On January 30 2013 03:27 BlazeFury01 wrote: [quote] I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
Explain in detail why kids are more like monkeys "these days" than in the past. I'd love to hear your detailed explanation.
Simple. Who do kids try to emulate when their younger or older for that matter? Celebrities, Athletes, Musicians, Reality show divas, etc.
Celebrities, atheletes, and musicians have existed for a long time. You're not convincing me at all here. You're saying kids have role models. I knew that part already.
I changed my post before you posted. Also, convincing you is like a democrat trying to convince a republican, it won't happen. Because you already had your mind made up before I even posted.
I'm really just trying to find out why you said "kids these days". I've always hated that phrase because people can never back up what they mean when they say it, people throw that out all the time yet when you ask them about it, they never have an answer. This is the first time I got political talk from it though, amusing.
I'll backup what I say in one sentence. I say "these days" because I can only speak for the generation in which I have lived and can't speak for the past generations in which I have not.
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future.Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
You did not seriously just use the "gay people convert straight people to become gay" argument did you?
On January 30 2013 02:32 BlazeFury01 wrote: [quote] Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
Kids are not like monkeys, and if a parent treats them as such, they deserve to have shit flung in their face. Gay men kissing do not owe shitty parents anything.
I'm not talking about how a parent treats them, I'm talking about their mentality to copy what say see an what he/she thinks is cool. I actually heard people say in mid and high school that being gay was "cool" and straight kids tried it because it was the "thing to do" so to say.
A teenager's sexual confusion is no justification for the different treatment of homosexuals. If a child has grown up with the notion that his sexual identity is some sort of plaything, I cannot dismiss such a notion out of hand but can only chalk such a thing up to the environment he/she comes from; an environment in which parents are the ones with the most influence.
I agree. I believe that homosexuals should be treated equally to an extent and that extent is where religion comes in. Other than that, I have no problems.
On January 30 2013 03:16 Arghmyliver wrote: [quote]
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
Kids are not like monkeys, and if a parent treats them as such, they deserve to have shit flung in their face. Gay men kissing do not owe shitty parents anything.
I'm not talking about how a parent treats them, I'm talking about their mentality to copy what say see an what he/she thinks is cool. I actually heard people say in mid and high school that being gay was "cool" and straight kids tried it because it was the "thing to do" so to say.
A teenager's sexual confusion is no justification for the different treatment of homosexuals. If a child has grown up with the notion that his sexual identity is some sort of plaything, I cannot dismiss such a notion out of hand but can only chalk such a thing up to the environment he/she comes from; an environment in which parents are the ones with the most influence.
I agree. I believe that homosexuals should be treated equally to an extent and that extent is where religion comes in. Other than that, I have no problems.
So basically then you'd agree that BSA should not be provided with federal funding anymore then?
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future.Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
You did not seriously just use the "gay people convert straight people to become gay" argument did you?
No, I used a "fact" of what occurred at my middle/high school. Unless you just want to call it a factual argument. It was the straight kids decision to make the choice they did. The same as peer pressure. Some people do what they have to do to "be cool". Which is why I brought up the monkey analogy.
On January 30 2013 03:27 BlazeFury01 wrote: [quote] I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
Kids are not like monkeys, and if a parent treats them as such, they deserve to have shit flung in their face. Gay men kissing do not owe shitty parents anything.
I'm not talking about how a parent treats them, I'm talking about their mentality to copy what say see an what he/she thinks is cool. I actually heard people say in mid and high school that being gay was "cool" and straight kids tried it because it was the "thing to do" so to say.
A teenager's sexual confusion is no justification for the different treatment of homosexuals. If a child has grown up with the notion that his sexual identity is some sort of plaything, I cannot dismiss such a notion out of hand but can only chalk such a thing up to the environment he/she comes from; an environment in which parents are the ones with the most influence.
I agree. I believe that homosexuals should be treated equally to an extent and that extent is where religion comes in. Other than that, I have no problems.
So basically then you'd agree that BSA should not be provided with federal funding anymore then?
No, because that's where that extent comes in. Also, it's a double negative as removing federal funding wouldn't fix the problem either.
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future.Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
You did not seriously just use the "gay people convert straight people to become gay" argument did you?
No, I used a "fact" of what occurred at my middle/high school. Unless you just want to call it a factual argument. It was the straight kids decision to make the choice they did. The same as peer pressure. Some people do what they have to do to "be cool". Which is why I brought up the monkey analogy.
There is no factual argument. Even if you do have some hilarious anecdotal evidence about a straight kid peer pressured into engaging in a homosexual act, you're talking about 0.001% of the population, at best. Did you go to middle school in an extremely rural area, by any chance?
On January 30 2013 02:32 BlazeFury01 wrote: [quote] Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
You did not seriously just use the "gay people convert straight people to become gay" argument did you?
No, I used a "fact" of what occurred at my middle/high school. Unless you just want to call it a factual argument. It was the straight kids decision to make the choice they did. The same as peer pressure. Some people do what they have to do to "be cool". Which is why I brought up the monkey analogy.
There is no factual argument. Even if you do have some hilarious anecdotal evidence about a straight kid peer pressured into engaging in a homosexual act, you're talking about 0.001% of the population, at best. Did you go to middle school in an extremely rural area, by any chance?
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
Kids are not like monkeys, and if a parent treats them as such, they deserve to have shit flung in their face. Gay men kissing do not owe shitty parents anything.
I'm not talking about how a parent treats them, I'm talking about their mentality to copy what say see an what he/she thinks is cool. I actually heard people say in mid and high school that being gay was "cool" and straight kids tried it because it was the "thing to do" so to say.
A teenager's sexual confusion is no justification for the different treatment of homosexuals. If a child has grown up with the notion that his sexual identity is some sort of plaything, I cannot dismiss such a notion out of hand but can only chalk such a thing up to the environment he/she comes from; an environment in which parents are the ones with the most influence.
I agree. I believe that homosexuals should be treated equally to an extent and that extent is where religion comes in. Other than that, I have no problems.
So basically then you'd agree that BSA should not be provided with federal funding anymore then?
No, because that's where that extent comes in. Also, it's a double negative as removing federal funding wouldn't fix the problem either.
So you think that our secular government should provide funds to an organization that actively discriminates against its members? Would you not be upset if the KKK received federal funding as well? Taxpayers dollars? BSA can discriminate if they want on the basis of religion, you'll find a lot of people in this topic would support that, but the issue comes in taht they receive federal funding.
If we remove federal funding for Boy Scouts, how can we teach little British boys to be explorers and go out and colonize the globe for Mother Britannia?
On January 30 2013 02:32 BlazeFury01 wrote: [quote] Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
You did not seriously just use the "gay people convert straight people to become gay" argument did you?
No, I used a "fact" of what occurred at my middle/high school. Unless you just want to call it a factual argument. It was the straight kids decision to make the choice they did. The same as peer pressure. Some people do what they have to do to "be cool". Which is why I brought up the monkey analogy.
There is no factual argument. Even if you do have some hilarious anecdotal evidence about a straight kid peer pressured into engaging in a homosexual act, you're talking about 0.001% of the population, at best. Did you go to middle school in an extremely rural area, by any chance?
I went to school in an urban area. Also, where did you get that percentage from? If you were talking about yourself when you said "there is no factual argument" then I completely agree with you after seeing your false percentage.
On January 30 2013 03:16 Arghmyliver wrote: [quote]
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
You did not seriously just use the "gay people convert straight people to become gay" argument did you?
No, I used a "fact" of what occurred at my middle/high school. Unless you just want to call it a factual argument. It was the straight kids decision to make the choice they did. The same as peer pressure. Some people do what they have to do to "be cool". Which is why I brought up the monkey analogy.
There is no factual argument. Even if you do have some hilarious anecdotal evidence about a straight kid peer pressured into engaging in a homosexual act, you're talking about 0.001% of the population, at best. Did you go to middle school in an extremely rural area, by any chance?
I went to school in an urban area. Also, where did you get that percentage from? If you were talking about yourself when you said "there is no factual argument" then I completely agree with you after seeing your false percentage.
So to clarify, yes, you think gay people turn straight people gay.
On January 30 2013 03:16 Arghmyliver wrote: [quote]
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
You did not seriously just use the "gay people convert straight people to become gay" argument did you?
No, I used a "fact" of what occurred at my middle/high school. Unless you just want to call it a factual argument. It was the straight kids decision to make the choice they did. The same as peer pressure. Some people do what they have to do to "be cool". Which is why I brought up the monkey analogy.
There is no factual argument. Even if you do have some hilarious anecdotal evidence about a straight kid peer pressured into engaging in a homosexual act, you're talking about 0.001% of the population, at best. Did you go to middle school in an extremely rural area, by any chance?
On January 30 2013 03:48 BlazeFury01 wrote: [quote] Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
Kids are not like monkeys, and if a parent treats them as such, they deserve to have shit flung in their face. Gay men kissing do not owe shitty parents anything.
I'm not talking about how a parent treats them, I'm talking about their mentality to copy what say see an what he/she thinks is cool. I actually heard people say in mid and high school that being gay was "cool" and straight kids tried it because it was the "thing to do" so to say.
A teenager's sexual confusion is no justification for the different treatment of homosexuals. If a child has grown up with the notion that his sexual identity is some sort of plaything, I cannot dismiss such a notion out of hand but can only chalk such a thing up to the environment he/she comes from; an environment in which parents are the ones with the most influence.
I agree. I believe that homosexuals should be treated equally to an extent and that extent is where religion comes in. Other than that, I have no problems.
So basically then you'd agree that BSA should not be provided with federal funding anymore then?
No, because that's where that extent comes in. Also, it's a double negative as removing federal funding wouldn't fix the problem either.
So you think that our secular government should provide funds to an organization that actively discriminates against its members? Would you not be upset if the KKK received federal funding as well? Taxpayers dollars? BSA can discriminate if they want on the basis of religion, you'll find a lot of people in this topic would support that, but the issue comes in taht they receive federal funding.
The difference between the two is that one promotes violence and blatant hatred while the other doesn't promote hate nor violence but just doesn't accept one of a certain orientation to join due to religious morals and not to have kids exposed to such activity.
It's cute that you think it's possible to protect children from "such activity". Trust me, they know about gay people. You are just teaching them to hate them, by making them the Other. Can't think of anything more un-Christian than that.
On January 30 2013 03:27 BlazeFury01 wrote: [quote] I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
You did not seriously just use the "gay people convert straight people to become gay" argument did you?
No, I used a "fact" of what occurred at my middle/high school. Unless you just want to call it a factual argument. It was the straight kids decision to make the choice they did. The same as peer pressure. Some people do what they have to do to "be cool". Which is why I brought up the monkey analogy.
There is no factual argument. Even if you do have some hilarious anecdotal evidence about a straight kid peer pressured into engaging in a homosexual act, you're talking about 0.001% of the population, at best. Did you go to middle school in an extremely rural area, by any chance?
I went to school in an urban area. Also, where did you get that percentage from? If you were talking about yourself when you said "there is no factual argument" then I completely agree with you after seeing your false percentage.
So to clarify, yes, you think gay people turn straight people gay.
It depends on the mind of the individual in question and what they're trying to accomplish by doing so. Is it possible? Of course it is.
On January 30 2013 05:46 sam!zdat wrote: It's cute that you think it's possible to protect children from "such activity". Trust me, they know about gay people. You are just teaching them to hate them, by making them the Other. Can't think of anything more un-Christian than that.
There's a difference between knowing about it and being exposed to it first hand. Hate is such a strong word. Nobody is teaching them to "hate". Hate is when you enslave a race because of their color.
On January 30 2013 05:46 sam!zdat wrote: It's cute that you think it's possible to protect children from "such activity". Trust me, they know about gay people. You are just teaching them to hate them, by making them the Other. Can't think of anything more un-Christian than that.
There's a difference between knowing about it and being exposed to it first hand.
It's cute that you think it's possible to protect children from being exposed to it first hand.
edit: c'mon, dude, ask yourself "What Would Jesus Do?". Not that hard.
On January 30 2013 05:46 sam!zdat wrote: It's cute that you think it's possible to protect children from "such activity". Trust me, they know about gay people. You are just teaching them to hate them, by making them the Other. Can't think of anything more un-Christian than that.
There's a difference between knowing about it and being exposed to it first hand.
It's cute that you think it's possible to protect children from being exposed to it first hand.
edit: c'mon, dude, ask yourself "What Would Jesus Do?". Not that hard.
I have no idea what he would do. I do know of a story called "Sodom and Gomorrah".
On January 30 2013 03:27 BlazeFury01 wrote: [quote] I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
You did not seriously just use the "gay people convert straight people to become gay" argument did you?
No, I used a "fact" of what occurred at my middle/high school. Unless you just want to call it a factual argument. It was the straight kids decision to make the choice they did. The same as peer pressure. Some people do what they have to do to "be cool". Which is why I brought up the monkey analogy.
There is no factual argument. Even if you do have some hilarious anecdotal evidence about a straight kid peer pressured into engaging in a homosexual act, you're talking about 0.001% of the population, at best. Did you go to middle school in an extremely rural area, by any chance?
On January 30 2013 05:25 BlazeFury01 wrote:
On January 30 2013 05:24 FabledIntegral wrote:
On January 30 2013 05:22 BlazeFury01 wrote:
On January 30 2013 05:16 farvacola wrote:
On January 30 2013 05:04 BlazeFury01 wrote:
On January 30 2013 04:44 farvacola wrote:
On January 30 2013 04:43 BlazeFury01 wrote:
On January 30 2013 04:32 Alay wrote: [quote]
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
Kids are not like monkeys, and if a parent treats them as such, they deserve to have shit flung in their face. Gay men kissing do not owe shitty parents anything.
I'm not talking about how a parent treats them, I'm talking about their mentality to copy what say see an what he/she thinks is cool. I actually heard people say in mid and high school that being gay was "cool" and straight kids tried it because it was the "thing to do" so to say.
A teenager's sexual confusion is no justification for the different treatment of homosexuals. If a child has grown up with the notion that his sexual identity is some sort of plaything, I cannot dismiss such a notion out of hand but can only chalk such a thing up to the environment he/she comes from; an environment in which parents are the ones with the most influence.
I agree. I believe that homosexuals should be treated equally to an extent and that extent is where religion comes in. Other than that, I have no problems.
So basically then you'd agree that BSA should not be provided with federal funding anymore then?
No, because that's where that extent comes in. Also, it's a double negative as removing federal funding wouldn't fix the problem either.
So you think that our secular government should provide funds to an organization that actively discriminates against its members? Would you not be upset if the KKK received federal funding as well? Taxpayers dollars? BSA can discriminate if they want on the basis of religion, you'll find a lot of people in this topic would support that, but the issue comes in taht they receive federal funding.
The difference between the two is that one promotes violence and blatant hatred while the other doesn't promote hate nor violence but just doesn't accept one of a certain orientation to join due to religious morals and not to have kids exposed to such activity.
On January 30 2013 05:46 sam!zdat wrote: It's cute that you think it's possible to protect children from "such activity". Trust me, they know about gay people. You are just teaching them to hate them, by making them the Other. Can't think of anything more un-Christian than that.
There's a difference between knowing about it and being exposed to it first hand.
It's cute that you think it's possible to protect children from being exposed to it first hand.
edit: c'mon, dude, ask yourself "What Would Jesus Do?". Not that hard.
I have no idea what he would do. I do know of a story called "Sodom and Gomorrah".
Old Testament, buddy. Old Testament. haven't you heard the Good News?
Jesus would dissolve the obligation of strict adherence to the old Law and replace it with a new, non-deontological ethics of Love. He would exhort you to forget about your old prejudices and "Love your neighbor as yourself." I don't see you loving your neighbor as yourself. Better get on it.
On January 30 2013 05:46 sam!zdat wrote: It's cute that you think it's possible to protect children from "such activity". Trust me, they know about gay people. You are just teaching them to hate them, by making them the Other. Can't think of anything more un-Christian than that.
There's a difference between knowing about it and being exposed to it first hand.
It's cute that you think it's possible to protect children from being exposed to it first hand.
edit: c'mon, dude, ask yourself "What Would Jesus Do?". Not that hard.
I have no idea what he would do. I do know of a story called "Sodom and Gomorrah".
Something about 2 angels going to a town and the townspeople obviously then want to rape those angels. Then that one good guy offers his daughters up for rape instead of the angels. And then something about god killing everyone and turning that good guys wife into salt, because she looked at it. I think homosexuality is like the smallest problem there.
On January 30 2013 05:46 sam!zdat wrote: It's cute that you think it's possible to protect children from "such activity". Trust me, they know about gay people. You are just teaching them to hate them, by making them the Other. Can't think of anything more un-Christian than that.
There's a difference between knowing about it and being exposed to it first hand.
It's cute that you think it's possible to protect children from being exposed to it first hand.
edit: c'mon, dude, ask yourself "What Would Jesus Do?". Not that hard.
I have no idea what he would do. I do know of a story called "Sodom and Gomorrah".
Old Testament, buddy. Old Testament.
Jesus would dissolve the obligation of strict adherence to the old Law and replace it with a new, non-deontological ethics of Love. He would exhort you to forget about your old prejudices and "Love your neighbor as yourself." I don't see you loving your neighbor as yourself. Better get on it.
That action would be blasphemous to his father. Hence the story of Sodom to begin with.
On January 30 2013 05:46 sam!zdat wrote: It's cute that you think it's possible to protect children from "such activity". Trust me, they know about gay people. You are just teaching them to hate them, by making them the Other. Can't think of anything more un-Christian than that.
There's a difference between knowing about it and being exposed to it first hand.
It's cute that you think it's possible to protect children from being exposed to it first hand.
edit: c'mon, dude, ask yourself "What Would Jesus Do?". Not that hard.
I have no idea what he would do. I do know of a story called "Sodom and Gomorrah".
Old Testament, buddy. Old Testament.
Jesus would dissolve the obligation of strict adherence to the old Law and replace it with a new, non-deontological ethics of Love. He would exhort you to forget about your old prejudices and "Love your neighbor as yourself." I don't see you loving your neighbor as yourself. Better get on it.
That action would be blasphemous to his father. Hence the story of Sodom to begin with.
Did you just call Jesus a blasphemer? You're a weird sort of Christian.
edit: do you have any idea what the "Good News" IS?
On January 30 2013 05:46 sam!zdat wrote: It's cute that you think it's possible to protect children from "such activity". Trust me, they know about gay people. You are just teaching them to hate them, by making them the Other. Can't think of anything more un-Christian than that.
There's a difference between knowing about it and being exposed to it first hand.
It's cute that you think it's possible to protect children from being exposed to it first hand.
edit: c'mon, dude, ask yourself "What Would Jesus Do?". Not that hard.
I have no idea what he would do. I do know of a story called "Sodom and Gomorrah".
Old Testament, buddy. Old Testament.
Jesus would dissolve the obligation of strict adherence to the old Law and replace it with a new, non-deontological ethics of Love. He would exhort you to forget about your old prejudices and "Love your neighbor as yourself." I don't see you loving your neighbor as yourself. Better get on it.
That action would be blasphemous to his father. Hence the story of Sodom to begin with.
Did you just call Jesus a blasphemer? You're a weird sort of Christian.
edit: do you have any idea what the "Good News" IS?
No, I said the action in which you claimed that he would make based off your opinion would be blasphemous.
edit: what was the nature of paul's conversion? What was he before? What was his problem? what did he realize that caused him to convert? How about Augustine? why did he decide to get baptized NOW, as opposed to right before his death as he originally planned?
On January 30 2013 06:03 sam!zdat wrote: Ah, so you don't understand Christianity! How sad
You're funny. I love how you stray off topic because you have no argument left. How about you learn how to debate properly and don't act like such a jerk. I'm open minded, I heard what you had to say. I didn't insult your orientation or anything about you. But I see you like to take it there.
edit: I'm trying to educate you about the philosophical content of your own damn religion and you say I have no argument left. Why don't you shut up and learn something?
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
You did not seriously just use the "gay people convert straight people to become gay" argument did you?
No, I used a "fact" of what occurred at my middle/high school. Unless you just want to call it a factual argument. It was the straight kids decision to make the choice they did. The same as peer pressure. Some people do what they have to do to "be cool". Which is why I brought up the monkey analogy.
There is no factual argument. Even if you do have some hilarious anecdotal evidence about a straight kid peer pressured into engaging in a homosexual act, you're talking about 0.001% of the population, at best. Did you go to middle school in an extremely rural area, by any chance?
I went to school in an urban area. Also, where did you get that percentage from? If you were talking about yourself when you said "there is no factual argument" then I completely agree with you after seeing your false percentage.
So to clarify, yes, you think gay people turn straight people gay.
It depends on the mind of the individual in question and what they're trying to accomplish by doing so. Is it possible? Of course it is.
I cannot explain in words how much stupid is containted in this one, short post. How it contradicts every study and every piece of credible scientific evidence on the subject. So I'll just say; lol.
On January 30 2013 03:48 BlazeFury01 wrote: [quote] Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
You did not seriously just use the "gay people convert straight people to become gay" argument did you?
No, I used a "fact" of what occurred at my middle/high school. Unless you just want to call it a factual argument. It was the straight kids decision to make the choice they did. The same as peer pressure. Some people do what they have to do to "be cool". Which is why I brought up the monkey analogy.
There is no factual argument. Even if you do have some hilarious anecdotal evidence about a straight kid peer pressured into engaging in a homosexual act, you're talking about 0.001% of the population, at best. Did you go to middle school in an extremely rural area, by any chance?
I went to school in an urban area. Also, where did you get that percentage from? If you were talking about yourself when you said "there is no factual argument" then I completely agree with you after seeing your false percentage.
So to clarify, yes, you think gay people turn straight people gay.
It depends on the mind of the individual in question and what they're trying to accomplish by doing so. Is it possible? Of course it is.
I cannot explain in words how much stupid is containted in this one, short post. How it contradicts every study and every piece of credible scientific evidence on the subject. So I'll just say; lol.
Post your credible scientific evidence or don't say anything at all. Lets see what "evidence" I "contradict" with.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
You did not seriously just use the "gay people convert straight people to become gay" argument did you?
No, I used a "fact" of what occurred at my middle/high school. Unless you just want to call it a factual argument. It was the straight kids decision to make the choice they did. The same as peer pressure. Some people do what they have to do to "be cool". Which is why I brought up the monkey analogy.
There is no factual argument. Even if you do have some hilarious anecdotal evidence about a straight kid peer pressured into engaging in a homosexual act, you're talking about 0.001% of the population, at best. Did you go to middle school in an extremely rural area, by any chance?
I went to school in an urban area. Also, where did you get that percentage from? If you were talking about yourself when you said "there is no factual argument" then I completely agree with you after seeing your false percentage.
So to clarify, yes, you think gay people turn straight people gay.
It depends on the mind of the individual in question and what they're trying to accomplish by doing so. Is it possible? Of course it is.
I cannot explain in words how much stupid is containted in this one, short post. How it contradicts every study and every piece of credible scientific evidence on the subject. So I'll just say; lol.
Post your credible scientific evidence or don't say anything at all. Lets see what "evidence" I "contradict" with.
No. I will not lend credence your absurd notion that you can turn a straight person gay by taking it even remotely seriously, or dignify it with a serious response. How about you show us your evidence? How about you show me one serious scientist who will say that sexuality is not genetic, or that it can be altered through something as shallow as peer pressure?
On January 30 2013 04:43 BlazeFury01 wrote: [quote] Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
You did not seriously just use the "gay people convert straight people to become gay" argument did you?
No, I used a "fact" of what occurred at my middle/high school. Unless you just want to call it a factual argument. It was the straight kids decision to make the choice they did. The same as peer pressure. Some people do what they have to do to "be cool". Which is why I brought up the monkey analogy.
There is no factual argument. Even if you do have some hilarious anecdotal evidence about a straight kid peer pressured into engaging in a homosexual act, you're talking about 0.001% of the population, at best. Did you go to middle school in an extremely rural area, by any chance?
I went to school in an urban area. Also, where did you get that percentage from? If you were talking about yourself when you said "there is no factual argument" then I completely agree with you after seeing your false percentage.
So to clarify, yes, you think gay people turn straight people gay.
It depends on the mind of the individual in question and what they're trying to accomplish by doing so. Is it possible? Of course it is.
I cannot explain in words how much stupid is containted in this one, short post. How it contradicts every study and every piece of credible scientific evidence on the subject. So I'll just say; lol.
Post your credible scientific evidence or don't say anything at all. Lets see what "evidence" I "contradict" with.
No. I will not lend credence your absurd notion that you can turn a straight person gay by taking it even remotely seriously, or dignify it with a serious response. How about you show us your evidence? How about you show me one serious scientist who will say that sexuality is not genetic, or that it can be altered through something as shallow as peer pressure?
Because you have none. You're just made it up to make yourself sound smart. If you read my post again, you would see that peer pressure was used as an example that kids will do anything to "be cool" or "fit in". Before it I clearly say that it was the kids choice to make the decision to convert to "fit in". I have had lady friends in high school who were straight on day then bi or straight lesbian the day after. So, I don't see where you saw an "amount of stupid" in my post.
On January 30 2013 04:43 BlazeFury01 wrote: Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
Do you think that's what scouts instructors do? kiss people and teach kids about sexuality? A person being homosexual, but not acting out any homosexual actions has nothing to do with their job.
On January 30 2013 05:20 FabledIntegral wrote: [quote]
You did not seriously just use the "gay people convert straight people to become gay" argument did you?
No, I used a "fact" of what occurred at my middle/high school. Unless you just want to call it a factual argument. It was the straight kids decision to make the choice they did. The same as peer pressure. Some people do what they have to do to "be cool". Which is why I brought up the monkey analogy.
There is no factual argument. Even if you do have some hilarious anecdotal evidence about a straight kid peer pressured into engaging in a homosexual act, you're talking about 0.001% of the population, at best. Did you go to middle school in an extremely rural area, by any chance?
I went to school in an urban area. Also, where did you get that percentage from? If you were talking about yourself when you said "there is no factual argument" then I completely agree with you after seeing your false percentage.
So to clarify, yes, you think gay people turn straight people gay.
It depends on the mind of the individual in question and what they're trying to accomplish by doing so. Is it possible? Of course it is.
I cannot explain in words how much stupid is containted in this one, short post. How it contradicts every study and every piece of credible scientific evidence on the subject. So I'll just say; lol.
Post your credible scientific evidence or don't say anything at all. Lets see what "evidence" I "contradict" with.
No. I will not lend credence your absurd notion that you can turn a straight person gay by taking it even remotely seriously, or dignify it with a serious response. How about you show us your evidence? How about you show me one serious scientist who will say that sexuality is not genetic, or that it can be altered through something as shallow as peer pressure?
Because you have none. You're just made it up to make yourself sound smart. If you read my post again, you would see that peer pressure was used as an example that kids will do anything to "be cool" or "fit in". Before it I clearly say that it was the kids choice to make the decision to convert to "fit in". I have had lady friends in high school who were straight on day then bi or straight lesbian the day after. So, I don't see where you saw an "amount of stupid" in my post.
An ancdote of someone acting gay in high school? Seems credible. If you really think I made this up, go read a book. Not the bible, btw.
On January 30 2013 04:43 BlazeFury01 wrote: Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
Do you think that's what scouts instructors do? kiss people and teach kids about sexuality? A person being homosexual, but not acting out any homosexual actions has nothing to do with their job.
That's fine in a sense because the child isn't being directly exposed to any actions. Although, it still does go against their policies in general. But, as long as the kid doesn't see anything then there shouldn't be a problem.
Join a different group then? It's not like every group is the same. Scout has evolved in the past and will continue to evolve. If you're so narrow minded that you don't want your child to join a group with gay people in it then don't join. But the Scout association of America should do what other associations worldwide have done (such as the UK) and modernise yet again.
On January 30 2013 05:24 BlazeFury01 wrote: [quote] No, I used a "fact" of what occurred at my middle/high school. Unless you just want to call it a factual argument. It was the straight kids decision to make the choice they did. The same as peer pressure. Some people do what they have to do to "be cool". Which is why I brought up the monkey analogy.
There is no factual argument. Even if you do have some hilarious anecdotal evidence about a straight kid peer pressured into engaging in a homosexual act, you're talking about 0.001% of the population, at best. Did you go to middle school in an extremely rural area, by any chance?
I went to school in an urban area. Also, where did you get that percentage from? If you were talking about yourself when you said "there is no factual argument" then I completely agree with you after seeing your false percentage.
So to clarify, yes, you think gay people turn straight people gay.
It depends on the mind of the individual in question and what they're trying to accomplish by doing so. Is it possible? Of course it is.
I cannot explain in words how much stupid is containted in this one, short post. How it contradicts every study and every piece of credible scientific evidence on the subject. So I'll just say; lol.
Post your credible scientific evidence or don't say anything at all. Lets see what "evidence" I "contradict" with.
No. I will not lend credence your absurd notion that you can turn a straight person gay by taking it even remotely seriously, or dignify it with a serious response. How about you show us your evidence? How about you show me one serious scientist who will say that sexuality is not genetic, or that it can be altered through something as shallow as peer pressure?
Because you have none. You're just made it up to make yourself sound smart. If you read my post again, you would see that peer pressure was used as an example that kids will do anything to "be cool" or "fit in". Before it I clearly say that it was the kids choice to make the decision to convert to "fit in". I have had lady friends in high school who were straight on day then bi or straight lesbian the day after. So, I don't see where you saw an "amount of stupid" in my post.
An ancdote of someone acting gay in high school? Seems credible. If you really think I made this up, go read a book. Not the bible, btw.
There's a difference between acting and doing. These kids definitely weren't acting. How about you post some books up here that you've read that cover the topic since you've read so much.
BSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again.
I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture.
I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future.Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents
[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand]
Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity.
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
Kids are not like monkeys, and if a parent treats them as such, they deserve to have shit flung in their face. Gay men kissing do not owe shitty parents anything.
I'm not talking about how a parent treats them, I'm talking about their mentality to copy what say see an what he/she thinks is cool. I actually heard people say in mid and high school that being gay was "cool" and straight kids tried it because it was the "thing to do" so to say.
I tried to be the leader of the autobots because it was the thing to do.
On January 30 2013 02:32 BlazeFury01 wrote: [quote] Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh?
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership.
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license.
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad?
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.)
Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority.
Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
Kids are not like monkeys, and if a parent treats them as such, they deserve to have shit flung in their face. Gay men kissing do not owe shitty parents anything.
I'm not talking about how a parent treats them, I'm talking about their mentality to copy what say see an what he/she thinks is cool. I actually heard people say in mid and high school that being gay was "cool" and straight kids tried it because it was the "thing to do" so to say.
I tried to be the leader of the autobots because it was the thing to do.
Sarcasm. But you still did it right? You just proved my point.
On January 30 2013 05:35 FabledIntegral wrote: [quote]
There is no factual argument. Even if you do have some hilarious anecdotal evidence about a straight kid peer pressured into engaging in a homosexual act, you're talking about 0.001% of the population, at best. Did you go to middle school in an extremely rural area, by any chance?
I went to school in an urban area. Also, where did you get that percentage from? If you were talking about yourself when you said "there is no factual argument" then I completely agree with you after seeing your false percentage.
So to clarify, yes, you think gay people turn straight people gay.
It depends on the mind of the individual in question and what they're trying to accomplish by doing so. Is it possible? Of course it is.
I cannot explain in words how much stupid is containted in this one, short post. How it contradicts every study and every piece of credible scientific evidence on the subject. So I'll just say; lol.
Post your credible scientific evidence or don't say anything at all. Lets see what "evidence" I "contradict" with.
No. I will not lend credence your absurd notion that you can turn a straight person gay by taking it even remotely seriously, or dignify it with a serious response. How about you show us your evidence? How about you show me one serious scientist who will say that sexuality is not genetic, or that it can be altered through something as shallow as peer pressure?
Because you have none. You're just made it up to make yourself sound smart. If you read my post again, you would see that peer pressure was used as an example that kids will do anything to "be cool" or "fit in". Before it I clearly say that it was the kids choice to make the decision to convert to "fit in". I have had lady friends in high school who were straight on day then bi or straight lesbian the day after. So, I don't see where you saw an "amount of stupid" in my post.
An ancdote of someone acting gay in high school? Seems credible. If you really think I made this up, go read a book. Not the bible, btw.
There's a difference between acting and doing. These kids definitely weren't acting. How about you post some books up here that you've read that cover the topic since you've read so much.
It is not my responsibility do educate you on fundamental human sexuality. I am not going explain this to you any more than I'm going to explain how we know the earth is not flat.
On January 30 2013 05:41 BlazeFury01 wrote: [quote] I went to school in an urban area. Also, where did you get that percentage from? If you were talking about yourself when you said "there is no factual argument" then I completely agree with you after seeing your false percentage.
So to clarify, yes, you think gay people turn straight people gay.
It depends on the mind of the individual in question and what they're trying to accomplish by doing so. Is it possible? Of course it is.
I cannot explain in words how much stupid is containted in this one, short post. How it contradicts every study and every piece of credible scientific evidence on the subject. So I'll just say; lol.
Post your credible scientific evidence or don't say anything at all. Lets see what "evidence" I "contradict" with.
No. I will not lend credence your absurd notion that you can turn a straight person gay by taking it even remotely seriously, or dignify it with a serious response. How about you show us your evidence? How about you show me one serious scientist who will say that sexuality is not genetic, or that it can be altered through something as shallow as peer pressure?
Because you have none. You're just made it up to make yourself sound smart. If you read my post again, you would see that peer pressure was used as an example that kids will do anything to "be cool" or "fit in". Before it I clearly say that it was the kids choice to make the decision to convert to "fit in". I have had lady friends in high school who were straight on day then bi or straight lesbian the day after. So, I don't see where you saw an "amount of stupid" in my post.
An ancdote of someone acting gay in high school? Seems credible. If you really think I made this up, go read a book. Not the bible, btw.
There's a difference between acting and doing. These kids definitely weren't acting. How about you post some books up here that you've read that cover the topic since you've read so much.
It is not my responsibility do educate you on fundamental human sexuality. I am not going explain this to you any more than I'm going to explain how we know the earth is not flat.
@McBengt, I think this is the point where you should give up discussing since no argument will be sufficient Good job staying mannerd though! To the OP - I agree even though it doesn't affect me what so ever
On January 30 2013 05:35 FabledIntegral wrote: [quote]
There is no factual argument. Even if you do have some hilarious anecdotal evidence about a straight kid peer pressured into engaging in a homosexual act, you're talking about 0.001% of the population, at best. Did you go to middle school in an extremely rural area, by any chance?
I went to school in an urban area. Also, where did you get that percentage from? If you were talking about yourself when you said "there is no factual argument" then I completely agree with you after seeing your false percentage.
So to clarify, yes, you think gay people turn straight people gay.
It depends on the mind of the individual in question and what they're trying to accomplish by doing so. Is it possible? Of course it is.
I cannot explain in words how much stupid is containted in this one, short post. How it contradicts every study and every piece of credible scientific evidence on the subject. So I'll just say; lol.
Post your credible scientific evidence or don't say anything at all. Lets see what "evidence" I "contradict" with.
No. I will not lend credence your absurd notion that you can turn a straight person gay by taking it even remotely seriously, or dignify it with a serious response. How about you show us your evidence? How about you show me one serious scientist who will say that sexuality is not genetic, or that it can be altered through something as shallow as peer pressure?
Because you have none. You're just made it up to make yourself sound smart. If you read my post again, you would see that peer pressure was used as an example that kids will do anything to "be cool" or "fit in". Before it I clearly say that it was the kids choice to make the decision to convert to "fit in". I have had lady friends in high school who were straight on day then bi or straight lesbian the day after. So, I don't see where you saw an "amount of stupid" in my post.
An ancdote of someone acting gay in high school? Seems credible. If you really think I made this up, go read a book. Not the bible, btw.
There's a difference between acting and doing. These kids definitely weren't acting. How about you post some books up here that you've read that cover the topic since you've read so much.
THEY TURNED LESBIAN IN THE SPAN OF ONLY A DAY OH GOD ITS SPREADING This haiku is copyright 2013 Jormundr Holdings LLC
On January 30 2013 05:44 FabledIntegral wrote: [quote]
So to clarify, yes, you think gay people turn straight people gay.
It depends on the mind of the individual in question and what they're trying to accomplish by doing so. Is it possible? Of course it is.
I cannot explain in words how much stupid is containted in this one, short post. How it contradicts every study and every piece of credible scientific evidence on the subject. So I'll just say; lol.
Post your credible scientific evidence or don't say anything at all. Lets see what "evidence" I "contradict" with.
No. I will not lend credence your absurd notion that you can turn a straight person gay by taking it even remotely seriously, or dignify it with a serious response. How about you show us your evidence? How about you show me one serious scientist who will say that sexuality is not genetic, or that it can be altered through something as shallow as peer pressure?
Because you have none. You're just made it up to make yourself sound smart. If you read my post again, you would see that peer pressure was used as an example that kids will do anything to "be cool" or "fit in". Before it I clearly say that it was the kids choice to make the decision to convert to "fit in". I have had lady friends in high school who were straight on day then bi or straight lesbian the day after. So, I don't see where you saw an "amount of stupid" in my post.
An ancdote of someone acting gay in high school? Seems credible. If you really think I made this up, go read a book. Not the bible, btw.
There's a difference between acting and doing. These kids definitely weren't acting. How about you post some books up here that you've read that cover the topic since you've read so much.
It is not my responsibility do educate you on fundamental human sexuality. I am not going explain this to you any more than I'm going to explain how we know the earth is not flat.
Because you yourself do not know. Nice try buddy
What makes you think you know human sexuality? From where do you derive your ethical knowledge?
On January 30 2013 05:46 BlazeFury01 wrote: [quote] It depends on the mind of the individual in question and what they're trying to accomplish by doing so. Is it possible? Of course it is.
I cannot explain in words how much stupid is containted in this one, short post. How it contradicts every study and every piece of credible scientific evidence on the subject. So I'll just say; lol.
Post your credible scientific evidence or don't say anything at all. Lets see what "evidence" I "contradict" with.
No. I will not lend credence your absurd notion that you can turn a straight person gay by taking it even remotely seriously, or dignify it with a serious response. How about you show us your evidence? How about you show me one serious scientist who will say that sexuality is not genetic, or that it can be altered through something as shallow as peer pressure?
Because you have none. You're just made it up to make yourself sound smart. If you read my post again, you would see that peer pressure was used as an example that kids will do anything to "be cool" or "fit in". Before it I clearly say that it was the kids choice to make the decision to convert to "fit in". I have had lady friends in high school who were straight on day then bi or straight lesbian the day after. So, I don't see where you saw an "amount of stupid" in my post.
An ancdote of someone acting gay in high school? Seems credible. If you really think I made this up, go read a book. Not the bible, btw.
There's a difference between acting and doing. These kids definitely weren't acting. How about you post some books up here that you've read that cover the topic since you've read so much.
It is not my responsibility do educate you on fundamental human sexuality. I am not going explain this to you any more than I'm going to explain how we know the earth is not flat.
Because you yourself do not know. Nice try buddy
What makes you think you know human sexuality? From where do you derive your ethical knowledge?
What makes you think that I don't know it and that you do?
I cannot explain in words how much stupid is containted in this one, short post. How it contradicts every study and every piece of credible scientific evidence on the subject. So I'll just say; lol.
Post your credible scientific evidence or don't say anything at all. Lets see what "evidence" I "contradict" with.
No. I will not lend credence your absurd notion that you can turn a straight person gay by taking it even remotely seriously, or dignify it with a serious response. How about you show us your evidence? How about you show me one serious scientist who will say that sexuality is not genetic, or that it can be altered through something as shallow as peer pressure?
Because you have none. You're just made it up to make yourself sound smart. If you read my post again, you would see that peer pressure was used as an example that kids will do anything to "be cool" or "fit in". Before it I clearly say that it was the kids choice to make the decision to convert to "fit in". I have had lady friends in high school who were straight on day then bi or straight lesbian the day after. So, I don't see where you saw an "amount of stupid" in my post.
An ancdote of someone acting gay in high school? Seems credible. If you really think I made this up, go read a book. Not the bible, btw.
There's a difference between acting and doing. These kids definitely weren't acting. How about you post some books up here that you've read that cover the topic since you've read so much.
It is not my responsibility do educate you on fundamental human sexuality. I am not going explain this to you any more than I'm going to explain how we know the earth is not flat.
Because you yourself do not know. Nice try buddy
What makes you think you know human sexuality? From where do you derive your ethical knowledge?
What makes you think that I don't know it and that you do?
Well, for starters most of what you say is in direct opposition to current scientific consensus. Second of all you sound like you learned about homosexuality from Glenn Beck or Fred Phelps. Your 'firsthand knowledge' seems like a crock of shit. I mean I wish when I was in high school I hung out with women while they were having sex with guys one day then when they were having sex with women the next. You yourself said you knew they weren't acting so you must have been there, right?
This thread has ran it's course and since it's bump you're all just rehashing old arguments; and poorly so. There's not much more I hate than making an argument and then saying it's equivocal to common sense so I'm not providing proof, and even more so when both sides are doing it.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h453/MrAnaximander/TL-BoyScouts-DuckDynasty.jpg)
(as far as I'm aware, I hope I'm not stereotyping, but I think all the southern states are the bible belt or something)![[image loading]](http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/p_yjcwwaxuor-xzl2te4qa.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.proa.org/exhibiciones/pasadas/serrano/sala2/klansman-gran-dragon.jpeg)
.
