BabeTruth
Champion Author
New York
Posts:1,166
Points:154,560
Joined:Dec 2012
|
Message Posted: May 25, 2013 7:34:50 AM
It hardly sounds like the Boy Scout "caved". Of the 1,400 delegates at their meeting, 68% of them were in favor of the change.
I don't know where you get the idea that kids are "too young to be aware of such a condition". When I was a kid I knew lots of kids who were definitely hetero before they were 10.
As has been proved to you before, homosexuality IS natural (unless of course you wish to redefine the word "natural", thus proving yet again that you know virtually nothing of biology).
And as has been proved to you many times before, just because something is not "normal" doesn't mean that it can be discriminated against. Being blind, or having a medical condition people should still be treated with equality.
If you had said "Any modification to the BSA's policy should have made it clear that (blindness, paraplegia, or leukemia or many other conditions) is not a normal part of manhood and not to be accepted as such." it would most definitely be seen as a statement of intolerance and discrimination.
And yet you contend that the "condition" of homosexuality should be treated differently.
|
rumbleseat
Champion Author
Winnipeg
Posts:22,940
Points:3,532,280
Joined:Oct 2002
|
Message Posted: May 24, 2013 11:19:01 PM
"Any modification to the BSA's policy should have made it clear that homosexuality is not a normal part of manhood and not to be accepted as such."
In other words, you want them to say something along the lines of "look we might have to let you in even though you are homosexual, but don't you dare admit to it, because us heterosexuals don't like it".
You actually would prefer the Boy Scouts adopt the stupid "don't ask, don't tell" policy that the military has dropped?
|
gas_too_high
Champion Author
Columbus
Posts:11,554
Points:1,935,390
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 24, 2013 10:12:54 PM
'The Boy Scouts will now allow troops and packs with chartering organizations that approve to admit openly gay scouts."
Too bad the BSA caved.
As I said, I don't really have a problem with admitting youth who claim a same-sex attraction (although most boys are too young to really be aware of such a condition). But proclaiming oneself to be "gay" or homosexual is generally a statement that homosexuality is normal and natural.
Any modification to the BSA's policy should have made it clear that homosexuality is not a normal part of manhood and not to be accepted as such. In failing to do so, the BSA caved.
GTH
|
worryfree
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:23,878
Points:1,871,725
Joined:Oct 2005
|
Message Posted: May 24, 2013 1:25:29 PM
Any gay scout that turns 18 and wants to continue cannot..Eagle or otherwise.
|
Weaslespit
Champion Author
Cincinnati
Posts:8,964
Points:314,120
Joined:Sep 2008
|
Message Posted: May 24, 2013 9:10:39 AM
"They voted on the revised policy today. The Boy Scouts will now allow troops and packs with chartering organizations that approve to admit openly gay scouts."
This part of the 'debate' is over.
Too bad that any Scout who is gay that achieves the rank of Eagle Scout won't be welcomed as an adult member though this is probably just a matter of time... Baby steps.
Rome wasn't built in a day.
|
BabeTruth
Champion Author
New York
Posts:1,166
Points:154,560
Joined:Dec 2012
|
Message Posted: May 24, 2013 6:46:44 AM
no1doc “Keeping ones private life private is not lying.”
That's not the way it sounds from gas_too_high. He says that SSM would be “living a lie” while he doesn't seem to have any problem with a gay man marrying a woman, even though it wouldn't be a “real marriage” since they wouldn't have intercourse and so wouldn't be able to procreate.
“The BSA states its beliefs clearly and someone who doesn't accept those beliefs has no "right" to be in that organization. The "lie" is pretending you can be a part or, insisting on being part of (any belief system) when you openly oppose those beliefs.”
Hmmm, I don't think so.
From the BSA themselves The Meaning of the Boy Scout Oath
“To do my duty to God . . .
Your family and religious leaders teach you about God and the ways you can serve. You do your duty to God by following the wisdom of those teachings every day and by respecting and defending the rights of others to practice their own beliefs.”
I see nothing in there that says that a Scout can't be gay. Note that it only talks about a “duty to God” and “following the wisdom of those teachings. It doesn't say WHICH god or WHICH teachings. Note that there are denominations of Christianity which have no problem with homosexuality, and Scouting isn't restricted to just Christians anyway.
It goes further to say, “respecting and defending the rights of others to practice their own beliefs”, which unless I'm speaking a different language, means that if a gay boy belongs to a religion that doesn't have a problem with gays, then his beliefs should be respected and defended.
It doesn't say anything about prohibiting them.
The Oath also says: “
and morally straight.
To be a person of strong character, your relationships with others should be honest and open. You should respect and defend the rights of all people. Be clean in your speech and actions, and remain faithful in your religious beliefs. The values you practice as a Scout will help you shape a life of virtue and self-reliance.”
So, to “respect and defend the rights of all people” doesn't suggest to me that they should discriminate against homosexuals. Exactly the opposite.
The BSA Oath says “Being morally straight means to live your life with honesty, to be clean in your speech and actions, and to be a person of strong character.”
Again, nothing about sexual orientation. There's not even anything about sex anywhere.
And the results of yesterday's vote says I'm right.
|
rumbleseat
Champion Author
Winnipeg
Posts:22,940
Points:3,532,280
Joined:Oct 2002
|
Message Posted: May 24, 2013 2:30:43 AM
"you are trying to stifle discussion"
No, it is you who is trying to keep the discussion going, keep the discrimination alive, keep segregating individuals on the basis of something that is not even your business.
It is you who has tried to use scare tactics to keep alive a discussion that is rapidly losing all meaning.
It is you who says they can be equal all they want, just so long as they pretend to be straight to be actually considered equal.
It is you who figures it is fine for them to live a lie, and debased the institution of marriage by marrying people of the opposite sex they have no attraction to. It is that lie that devalues marriage, not a happy, devoted, gay marriage.
It is your irrational fear that allows you to believe BOYS can't be boys in an organization devoted to the development and growth of boys unless they proudly claim to be heterosexual, in an organization that has nothing to do with sex anyway.
The subject is equality, plain and simple, how can any person claiming to be a rational, thinking human being think there is anything new to discuss?
|
worryfree
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:23,878
Points:1,871,725
Joined:Oct 2005
|
Message Posted: May 23, 2013 11:50:09 PM
A giant step for compassion and humanity. Gay prejudice is going down!
Scouting was wrong on this and has fixed it.
[Edited by: worryfree at 5/23/2013 11:53:02 PM EST]
|
Panama19
Champion Author
Louisville
Posts:25,346
Points:2,546,235
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: May 23, 2013 11:33:57 PM
gas_too_high, "And, as no1doc says, the "lie" is insisting on being a part of an organization like the Boy Scouts, the values of which you are in fundamental disagreement"
So, are you saying that an atheist has no right to join the Catholic Church and to promote atheism from within the Church?
|
gas_too_high
Champion Author
Columbus
Posts:11,554
Points:1,935,390
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 23, 2013 10:45:29 PM
"Your attitude is the reason so many gays still live a lie, not wanting to be ostracized by mean-spirited people."
*what* "mean-spirited people"? As usual, you are trying to stifle discussion by tossing around insults (about unspecified people, at that).
And, as no1doc says, the "lie" is insisting on being a part of an organization like the Boy Scouts, the values of which you are in fundamental disagreement.
I might add, the "lie" is pretending a non-normal position is normal and natural. In defending that, you might as well be defending the "right" of an alcoholic to have a drink.
GTH
|
sgm4law
Champion Author
Maryland
Posts:18,844
Points:2,381,555
Joined:Mar 2006
|
Message Posted: May 23, 2013 6:46:35 PM
They voted on the revised policy today. The Boy Scouts will now allow troops and packs with chartering organizations that approve to admit openly gay scouts.
|
rumbleseat
Champion Author
Winnipeg
Posts:22,940
Points:3,532,280
Joined:Oct 2002
|
Message Posted: May 23, 2013 6:45:49 PM
"it's rejecting the "gay banner" that boy insists on proudly waving publicly."
Oh, what baloney. Just because I know you are Italian, or Russian, or Angolan, doesn't mean I think you are flaunting it when you come to a Scout meeting, same thing with homosexuality.
I have know many homosexuals, I have them in my circle of friends, I have worked with them, I have some in my family, none of them has EVER proudly waved a gay flag, any more then I strut around waving a heterosexual flag. Being gay is a simple fact of life, not a vocation, just as being heterosexual is a simple fact of life.
Your attitude is the reason so many gays still live a lie, not wanting to be ostracized by mean-spirited people.
[Edited by: rumbleseat at 5/23/2013 6:47:59 PM EST]
|
BabeTruth
Champion Author
New York
Posts:1,166
Points:154,560
Joined:Dec 2012
|
Message Posted: May 23, 2013 1:30:18 PM
As Weaslespit says, yes, currently just having the attractions DOES disqualify somebody from being a Scout.
Even if a person was a virgin, if they are known to be a homosexual, then they can't be a Scout.
And if they weren't the one who made it public, doesn't matter. They're still disqualified.
|
Weaslespit
Champion Author
Cincinnati
Posts:8,964
Points:314,120
Joined:Sep 2008
|
Message Posted: May 23, 2013 12:56:08 PM
"Nobody chooses to have SSA and simply having such attraction does NOT disqualify any boy (or man) from scouting."
Actually, currently it does... hence the problem.
|
no1doc
Champion Author
Milwaukee
Posts:20,603
Points:1,780,190
Joined:Oct 2007
|
Message Posted: May 23, 2013 12:36:47 PM
"So what if the boy didn't say anything but somebody else 'outed' him? Should he be allowed to be a Scout then?"
Outstanding question BT. I hadn't read your question until after posting that last response to Weasel (I'm a slow thinker and writer). It's ironic but, that post serves just as well as an answer to your question.
Nobody chooses to have SSA and simply having such attraction does NOT disqualify any boy (or man) from scouting. Nor should any third party allegation of SSA disqualify that person. But acting on SSA or openly promoting the acceptance of such action is a choice, and is incompatible with the traditional morality Scouting has always stood for.
|
no1doc
Champion Author
Milwaukee
Posts:20,603
Points:1,780,190
Joined:Oct 2007
|
Message Posted: May 23, 2013 11:40:05 AM
"Yes! Anybody who wants to belong to a group who restricts its membership should lie to gain entry if being themselves would have them disqualified. Nice!"
Keeping ones private life private is not lying. The BSA states its beliefs clearly and someone who doesn't accept those beliefs has no "right" to be in that organization. The "lie" is pretending you can be a part or, insisting on being part of (any belief system) when you openly oppose those beliefs.
That is the lie.
|
BabeTruth
Champion Author
New York
Posts:1,166
Points:154,560
Joined:Dec 2012
|
Message Posted: May 23, 2013 11:29:26 AM
no1doc "The BSA policy excluding openly "gay" scouts isn't rejecting the boy, it's rejecting the "gay banner" that boy insists on proudly waving publicly. If any boy wants to be in scouting, leave the agenda behind."
So what if the boy didn't say anything but somebody else 'outed' him? Should he be allowed to be a Scout then?
After all, it wasn't him "waving publicly".
|
Weaslespit
Champion Author
Cincinnati
Posts:8,964
Points:314,120
Joined:Sep 2008
|
Message Posted: May 23, 2013 10:59:43 AM
"If any boy wants to be in scouting, leave the agenda behind."
Yes! Anybody who wants to belong to a group who restricts its membership should lie to gain entry if being themselves would have them disqualified. Nice!
"The "right to privacy" is a right to privacy, not a right to public acceptance."
That's right - people still do not see African Americans as their equals either. Nobody is forcing them to accept that.
|
no1doc
Champion Author
Milwaukee
Posts:20,603
Points:1,780,190
Joined:Oct 2007
|
Message Posted: May 23, 2013 10:05:29 AM
The "right to privacy" is a right to privacy, not a right to public acceptance. Over 10 years ago the SCOTUS held that the constitutional right to freedom of association allows a private organization like the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to exclude a person from membership when "the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints." The BSA policy excluding openly "gay" scouts isn't rejecting the boy, it's rejecting the "gay banner" that boy insists on proudly waving publicly. If any boy wants to be in scouting, leave the agenda behind.
|
kiatoindos
Veteran Author
Chicago
Posts:453
Points:84,055
Joined:Dec 2012
|
Message Posted: May 23, 2013 8:53:25 AM
Found out what "GTH" meaning "Got the herpes" OUCH!!!!
|
rumbleseat
Champion Author
Winnipeg
Posts:22,940
Points:3,532,280
Joined:Oct 2002
|
Message Posted: May 23, 2013 7:59:39 AM
GTH asks: "So then, why the fuss about admitting a group defined by their preferred sex act??"
Good question. Since you and your ilk are the ones making the fuss, you and your ilk should be answering it.
The rest of us are making a fuss because it is discriminatory on the part of ANY group, including Boy Scouts, to exclude them just because they ARE homosexual boys.
Perhaps you would be happier if the group was calle Heterosexual Boy Scouts of America?
It is you and your ilk that are doing the defining, the enlightened among us actually just call them "boys".
|
worryfree
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:23,878
Points:1,871,725
Joined:Oct 2005
|
Message Posted: May 23, 2013 1:37:40 AM
They admit people that do the hetero sex act thingy...
|
kiatoindos
Veteran Author
Chicago
Posts:453
Points:84,055
Joined:Dec 2012
|
Message Posted: May 22, 2013 10:30:37 PM
Girl scouts might not be happy if they move in on their cookie sales!
|
gas_too_high
Champion Author
Columbus
Posts:11,554
Points:1,935,390
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 22, 2013 9:58:15 PM
"Better come up with some new merit badges! "
But, but -- we are continually told "The Boy Scouts are not a sex club."
So then, why the fuss about admitting a group defined by their preferred sex act??
GTH
|
kiatoindos
Veteran Author
Chicago
Posts:453
Points:84,055
Joined:Dec 2012
|
Message Posted: May 22, 2013 9:34:35 PM
Better come up with some new merit badges!
|
BabeTruth
Champion Author
New York
Posts:1,166
Points:154,560
Joined:Dec 2012
|
Message Posted: May 21, 2013 7:21:55 AM
You've hit the nail on the head Weaslespit. The only refutation used was opinion, and without facts or logic to back it up, one opinion doesn't count for anything more than another opinion.
|
BabeTruth
Champion Author
New York
Posts:1,166
Points:154,560
Joined:Dec 2012
|
Message Posted: May 21, 2013 7:11:21 AM
gas_too_high “What I said (as opposed to your distortion) was clear enough. Sadly, your distortion is typical when your arguments have been refuted.”
Sorry, but just making the claim that I “distorted” your statement doesn't count as “refuting” it. You have to actually use some logic to prove that I did so. But that seems to be typical of you when your arguments are baseless and not supported by any facts.
If it was so clear, then how is it that it can mean EXACTLY what I said it did? Why don't you tell us where and how I'm wrong?
While you're at it, you made the claim a little while ago that you've proved me wrong all sorts of times. Since I can't see anywhere that you've proved me wrong, I asked you (politely) to give us an example. So far you've yet to comply. Is that because you can't find any place where you've proved me wrong either. And BTW, proving me wrong isn't just making the claim that I'm wrong, you actually have to present proof, not just your say so.
“Then any demand anyone might have can become a "civil right," which is ridiculous. There is no basis for freely chosen behavior, other than explicitly protected Constitutional behavior like free speech and freedom of religion, to be a "civil right."”
If you follow your last statement to its logical conclusion, then using your exact words, racial equality can't be a civil right either, since it's not explicitly protected in the Constitution.
It looks like you're in the process of redefining yet another word to fit your own argument.
FYI, religion is a freely chosen behavior. So your statement that “There is no basis for freely chosen behavior ... to be a civil right” is wrong.
“"Gay rights" including the "right to redefine marriage" or the "right to force themselves into the Boy Scouts" is not based on who anyone *is* but on what they freely choose to *do*.”
You're incorrect again. Just a person admitting that they are a homosexual has been enough to get them prohibited from being in the BSA. There is nothing that they have * done * to be prohibited. Nobody knows what they have * done *. In fact, they may still be virgins, and yet they'd be prohibited based just on their own admission of what there are.
“No one has unlimited rights to alter society based on what they want to do.”
That's right. And a strawman of yours since nobody has made such a claim. But don't forget, that also means that no one has unlimited right to keep society the same based on what they want it to be like either.
|
Weaslespit
Champion Author
Cincinnati
Posts:8,964
Points:314,120
Joined:Sep 2008
|
Message Posted: May 20, 2013 11:58:41 PM
"What I said (as opposed to your distortion) was clear enough. Sadly, your distortion is typical when your arguments have been refuted."
Refuted by what - your opinion?
|
gas_too_high
Champion Author
Columbus
Posts:11,554
Points:1,935,390
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 20, 2013 11:12:57 PM
BT: 'Gee gas_too_high, I didn't know that if one self-identified as male, blue-eyed, brown-eyed, blonde-haired, white-haired, two-legged, or 5-fingered that one was expressing “implicit approval of it”. I always thought that if somebody self-identified it was just a statement of fact.'
gas_too_high “All of those conditions are normal, and none of them are objects of controversy over associated lifestyles; unlike homosexuality.”
BT: "So what you're saying is that if somebody says something about what they're like, it's true only if it's not something that some people think is controversial?"
What I said (as opposed to your distortion) was clear enough. Sadly, your distortion is typical when your arguments have been refuted.
"In your imagination perhaps, but in reality, civil rights are civil rights, regardless of whether the rights under discussion are based on race, gender, religion, culture, sexual orientation or any other way that people might be discriminated against."
Then any demand anyone might have can become a "civil right," which is ridiculous. There is no basis for freely chosen behavior, other than explicitly protected Constitutional behavior like free speech and freedom of religion, to be a "civil right." "Gay rights" including the "right to redefine marriage" or the "right to force themselves into the Boy Scouts" is not based on who anyone *is* but on what they freely choose to *do*. No one has unlimited rights to alter society based on what they want to do.
GTH
[Edited by: gas_too_high at 5/20/2013 11:14:39 PM EST]
|
Weaslespit
Champion Author
Cincinnati
Posts:8,964
Points:314,120
Joined:Sep 2008
|
Message Posted: May 20, 2013 10:58:39 PM
"I was scout leader for over 12 years and firmly believe the boys under 18 should be admitted to scouts but NOT as leaders over 18 years of age !!!!"
Assuming you are referencing 'gay' boys under 18 (otherwise I don't see any sense to your post), you are saying it is OK for them to become Eagle Scouts but then can never again participate in Scouting; 'Thanks for playing, now get lost'?
|
pupule777
Veteran Author
New Hampshire
Posts:301
Points:86,655
Joined:Jan 2013
|
Message Posted: May 20, 2013 7:04:53 PM
I was scout leader for over 12 years and firmly believe the boys under 18 should be admitted to scouts but NOT as leaders over 18 years of age !!!!
|
BabeTruth
Champion Author
New York
Posts:1,166
Points:154,560
Joined:Dec 2012
|
Message Posted: May 20, 2013 9:18:03 AM
BT: 'Gee gas_too_high, I didn't know that if one self-identified as male, blue-eyed, brown-eyed, blonde-haired, white-haired, two-legged, or 5-fingered that one was expressing “implicit approval of it”. I always thought that if somebody self-identified it was just a statement of fact.'
gas_too_high “All of those conditions are normal, and none of them are objects of controversy over associated lifestyles; unlike homosexuality.”
So what you're saying is that if somebody says something about what they're like, it's true only if it's not something that some people think is controversial?
Wow! That is some strange 'reasoning' you have there.
BT "And since I don't see anything about “Do not be a homosexual” in Scout law, I doubt if there's anything there either about it being against the ideals of scouting."
“Other than the part of the Boy Scout Oath to be "morally straight," you mean?”
So, what's the definition of “morally straight”? And where does that definition come from? Who is it that has the authority to define something as “morally straight” or “not morally straight”?
“Calling non-normative difference (whether or not you choose to call it "innate") "normal" does not help them live a "full and happy life," because that life will be based on a false and deceptive premise on what is "normal."”
First of all, the one calling them “normal” or “not normal” is you, not me. You switched to that term after it proved that you were wrong in how you used the word “natural” to describe heterosexuals.
The way you use “normal” is merely another way of saying that they fit the majority of people with regards to their sexual orientation. Of course, there are a lot of heterosexuals who's sexuality is clearly anything BUT “normal”, but that doesn't seem to mean anything to you as long as they perform their perversions with somebody of the opposite gender.
“And escalating this falsely into a "civil rights" issue is doubling down on that deception.”
In your imagination perhaps, but in reality, civil rights are civil rights, regardless of whether the rights under discussion are based on race, gender, religion, culture, sexual orientation or any other way that people might be discriminated against.
The rest of your paragraph merely emphasizes your misunderstanding of the issue.
|
Weaslespit
Champion Author
Cincinnati
Posts:8,964
Points:314,120
Joined:Sep 2008
|
Message Posted: May 20, 2013 9:09:32 AM
"In other words, if you had gained a measure of equality from civil rights movements, you would then have selfishly fought to deny similar equality for others?"
Scary, isn't it?
|
rumbleseat
Champion Author
Winnipeg
Posts:22,940
Points:3,532,280
Joined:Oct 2002
|
Message Posted: May 20, 2013 2:02:00 AM
"If I had been a minority actually helped by the genuine civil rights movement of the 1960s, I would be offended"
In other words, if you had gained a measure of equality from civil rights movements, you would then have selfishly fought to deny similar equality for others?
That shows weaker character than we had previously thought.
Still, you are in a dwindling minority, our grandchildren will look upon you as having been an old crock.
|
gas_too_high
Champion Author
Columbus
Posts:11,554
Points:1,935,390
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 19, 2013 11:09:22 PM
BT: 'Gee gas_too_high, I didn't know that if one self-identified as male, blue-eyed, brown-eyed, blonde-haired, white-haired, two-legged, or 5-fingered that one was expressing “implicit approval of it”. I always thought that if somebody self-identified it was just a statement of fact.'
All of those conditions are normal, and none of them are objects of controversy over associated lifestyles; unlike homosexuality.
"And since I don't see anything about “Do not be a homosexual” in Scout law, I doubt if there's anything there either about it being against the ideals of scouting."
Other than the part of the Boy Scout Oath to be "morally straight," you mean?
'“The most compassionate way possible” to deal with an individual who is homosexual would be similar to the way you deal with somebody who is paraplegic or blind or has some other either innate or non-innate difference. That is to be inclusive and help them to have as full and good life as they can, just like any other human being.'
That is absolutely correct, but that is *not* what you are advocating with respect to homosexuals. Calling non-normative difference (whether or not you choose to call it "innate") "normal" does not help them live a "full and happy life," because that life will be based on a false and deceptive premise on what is "normal."
And escalating this falsely into a "civil rights" issue is doubling down on that deception. If I had been a minority actually helped by the genuine civil rights movement of the 1960s, I would be offended by the hijacking of civil rights language by "gay rights" advocates, whose problems stem from embracing a non-normative condition as "normal," not from pervasive Jim Crow style segregation.
GTH
[Edited by: gas_too_high at 5/19/2013 11:12:25 PM EST]
|
Weaslespit
Champion Author
Cincinnati
Posts:8,964
Points:314,120
Joined:Sep 2008
|
Message Posted: May 19, 2013 5:28:39 PM
"The military hasn't fallen apart because of the change in attitude toward gay soldiers, the Boy Scouts wouldn't either."
You and your real-world examples. Facts haven't stopped people from being bigoted in the past, I don't see this suddenly changing any time soon (although the number of these people is slowly dwindling, just as those racists that gth brought-up have been dwindling for over a century).
|
BabeTruth
Champion Author
New York
Posts:1,166
Points:154,560
Joined:Dec 2012
|
Message Posted: May 19, 2013 8:29:47 AM
Gee gas_too_high, I didn't know that if one self-identified as male, blue-eyed, brown-eyed, blonde-haired, white-haired, two-legged, or 5-fingered that one was expressing “implicit approval of it”. I always thought that if somebody self-identified it was just a statement of fact.
Sort of like somebody who self-identifies as a murderer or a drunk driver in the courtroom isn't expressing approval, but just admitting reality.
And since I don't see anything about “Do not be a homosexual” in Scout law, I doubt if there's anything there either about it being against the ideals of scouting. Unless you can point out the paragraph and section where it says something like that then it looks like another one of those ideas out of your own imagination.
“The most compassionate way possible” to deal with an individual who is homosexual would be similar to the way you deal with somebody who is paraplegic or blind or has some other either innate or non-innate difference. That is to be inclusive and help them to have as full and good life as they can, just like any other human being.
Unfortunately, just like when the civil rights movement was fighting racial segregation, sometimes some recalcitrant corporations had to be hit where it hurts, in their bank accounts, before they too saw the light and ended discrimination. It took a long time with some golf/country clubs and other private organizations before they allowed membership to other races or other genders.
There always seems to be some groups that are oblivious to their discrimination no matter how many times they have been proved to be doing it.
|
rumbleseat
Champion Author
Winnipeg
Posts:22,940
Points:3,532,280
Joined:Oct 2002
|
Message Posted: May 19, 2013 2:26:17 AM
When I was in Boy Scouts, nobody self-identified as a heterosexual, either.
Why? Because Scouting is not a sex club! There is no sexuality badge! It matters not whether a boy is homosexual or heterosexual, scouting activities are designed around fun, learning, and personal growth, and do not involve sex related activity or discussion.
Since the mission of Boy Scouts is not to produce good little heterosexuals, the discriminatory exclusion of homosexuals does nothing constructive. All it does is make homosexuals keep secrets and feel themselves to be the inferior defective species some believe them to be.
The military hasn't fallen apart because of the change in attitude toward gay soldiers, the Boy Scouts wouldn't either.
[Edited by: rumbleseat at 5/19/2013 2:31:29 AM EST]
|
gas_too_high
Champion Author
Columbus
Posts:11,554
Points:1,935,390
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 18, 2013 10:48:33 PM
no1doc: "It's naive to think that having self identified "gay scouts" in the troop will not result in occasional campfire discussions of the "gay lifestyle"."
Whether those "campfire discussions" happen or not, the key phrase is "self-identified gay scouts". Identifying with homosexuality, in this culture, is an implicit approval of it. That is why, any concession made by the Boy Scouts to allowing anyone who considers himself "homosexual" to be a member, should at the same time make crystal clear that homosexuality (not the same-sex attraction, but allowing it to influence one's actions or to identify with it as a good and positive thing), is contrary to Scout law and the ideals of Scouting.
OF course, that distinction has to happen in the most compassionate way possible. A clear and sharp distinction has to be made between any same-sex attraction, and the individual who happens to have that condition. In no way does the condition render a moral judgement of any kind on its possessor. The only thing that can do so is what actions that person freely chooses to take (or perhaps to approve of taking).
Sadly, the Boy Scouts seem less interested in making that distinction, than in appeasing corporate donors who refuse to do so (on behalf of activists who refuse to do so -- perhaps after being misled themselves).
GTH
[Edited by: gas_too_high at 5/18/2013 10:52:57 PM EST]
|
BabeTruth
Champion Author
New York
Posts:1,166
Points:154,560
Joined:Dec 2012
|
Message Posted: May 18, 2013 8:27:38 PM
That would be as logical and realistic as most of his other ideas.
|
Weaslespit
Champion Author
Cincinnati
Posts:8,964
Points:314,120
Joined:Sep 2008
|
Message Posted: May 18, 2013 12:53:11 PM
"Ooh, BT, don't give him the idea of keeping gay kids out of regular school, too! LOL!!"
LOL!!!
|
rumbleseat
Champion Author
Winnipeg
Posts:22,940
Points:3,532,280
Joined:Oct 2002
|
Message Posted: May 18, 2013 7:44:07 AM
Ooh, BT, don't give him the idea of keeping gay kids out of regular school, too! LOL!!
|
BabeTruth
Champion Author
New York
Posts:1,166
Points:154,560
Joined:Dec 2012
|
Message Posted: May 18, 2013 7:32:08 AM
no1doc "It's naive to think that having self identified "gay scouts" in the troop will not result in occasional campfire discussions of the "gay lifestyle"."
Since nobody has said otherwise it's just a strawman that you bring it up.
But now that you have mentioned it, it's also naive to think that scouts sitting around the campfire haven't already discussed it at school. BSA doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's members also go to school and the kids they go camping with are the same kids they play with a recess.
By letting some kids become scouts and prohibiting others all you're doing is accentuating the issue and making them even more curious.
But again, just because the kids might discuss it around the campfire doesn't mean they're going to do it. BSA is not a sex club and sexual activity is not part of scouting. Those same kids are just as likely to be discussing the 'heterosexual lifestyle' around the campfire too. And not doing that either.
|
rumbleseat
Champion Author
Winnipeg
Posts:22,940
Points:3,532,280
Joined:Oct 2002
|
Message Posted: May 17, 2013 4:40:59 PM
"It's naive to think that having self identified "gay scouts" in the troop will not
result in occasional campfire discussions of the "gay lifestyle".
Campfire discussions? Have you ever been to a scout camp? Sure doesn't sound like it.
Sex is NOT a topic for campfire discussions, never has been, never will be. Doesn't mean boys don't discuss sex, but not like it's a roundtable subject. There is no sexuality badge!
|
Weaslespit
Champion Author
Cincinnati
Posts:8,964
Points:314,120
Joined:Sep 2008
|
Message Posted: May 17, 2013 3:20:07 PM
"Being black is a physical trait which cannot be changed."
Michael Jackson begs to differ...
|
no1doc
Champion Author
Milwaukee
Posts:20,603
Points:1,780,190
Joined:Oct 2007
|
Message Posted: May 17, 2013 2:47:07 PM
GTH is comparing support for the two issues, not the issues themselves. Being black is a physical trait which cannot be changed. SSA is an affinity which may or may not be acted upon, and which can change. Ones race is immutable; ones behavior is not.
It's naive to think that having self identified "gay scouts" in the troop will not
result in occasional campfire discussions of the "gay lifestyle".
[Edited by: no1doc at 5/17/2013 2:55:45 PM EST]
|
BabeTruth
Champion Author
New York
Posts:1,166
Points:154,560
Joined:Dec 2012
|
Message Posted: May 17, 2013 7:26:33 AM
Yes, racial segregation had solid support and hit a hard limit on July 3, 1863. From that point on, just like homosexual segregation now, it started to decline.
Those 'defending' marriage, just like those who defended slavery slavery before them, can hide like the three mystic monkeys and deny the direction that equal rights in this country is headed in, but that won't stop reality. Even though they never let the issue go until their dying breath, just like those who supported racial segregation, homosexual segregation is a lost and dying cause.
It's blind adherence to such 'traditions' of exclusion that is gradually eroding attendance at churches. Perhaps belief has also hit a hard limit?
|
rumbleseat
Champion Author
Winnipeg
Posts:22,940
Points:3,532,280
Joined:Oct 2002
|
Message Posted: May 17, 2013 4:23:25 AM
Funny how GTH rejected comparisons to the rights movements from slavery right up to the vote and the right to inter-racial marriage, yet, all of a sudden there is a comparison when it comes to support.
Yes, there was support for slavery, there is still a small pocket of people who believe the coloured are inferior animals. However, the support for slavery steadily dwindled until a swelling majority of people came to see slavery was wrong, the bigotry was wrong, and the discrimination was outlawed.
Support for gay marriage is INCREASING and more jurisdictions legalize and legitimize it.
And again, I repeat, Boy Scouts aren't a sex club, they never have been, and they never will be.
There is no sexual activity badge!
|
gas_too_high
Champion Author
Columbus
Posts:11,554
Points:1,935,390
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 16, 2013 11:09:15 PM
"Same-Sex Marriage Support Solidifies"
Just as segregation had solid support for many years in the old South.
Redefinition support will sooner or later hit a hard limit and go no further. And those defending marriage will not let this issue go, any more than those upholding the right to life of the unborn will let that issue go.
That will hold true even if the Boy Scouts cave.
GTH
[Edited by: gas_too_high at 5/16/2013 11:10:32 PM EST]
|
BabeTruth
Champion Author
New York
Posts:1,166
Points:154,560
Joined:Dec 2012
|
Message Posted: May 15, 2013 4:16:59 PM
Not just a minority Weaslespit, but an ever shrinking minority at that.
Same-Sex Marriage Support Solidifies
Support is now at 53% vs 45% and still growing.
And what's more, the trend is growing as the older people are dying off.
70% of 18-29 YO support SSM, while those against are mostly those over 65 YO. So in 20 years, supporters will be such a large majority they won't be able to be ignored - assuming of course that SSM won't be a national reality before then.
|