us Boy Scouts of America keeps gay ban

[bjoswald]

Yay! At least one organization isn't afraid to say "no" to the <snipped> agenda.

Gay is the new black.

[Calum Veteran]

Thread cleaned

Please do not use derogatory words to refer to groups of people. Thank you.

[Touchadowns]

Touchadowns I wouldn't mind an answer to my questions if you could, thanks

I didn't understand your question so I didn't answer it. If you want to refine it I would be happy to reply.

I'm not suggesting the Boy Scouts should be forced to allow gay and bisexual people to join; I'm currently only advocating exposing them, protesting them, and discussing/debating their policy.

C'mon man, just 2 comments ago you stated, after correcting me on exactly what you desire, that the only 2 viable outcomes of protesting BSA is either they go out of business, or they change their policy. You've stated repeatedly that you don't want them to go out of business, now you're saying you don't want to change them. What exactly DO you hope to accomplish then?

Do you deem that intolerance? In regard to my position of fighting intolerance with intolerance, I'm talking about other oppression that exists: The state not allowing same-sex couples to marry or adopt, for example. I don't wish to steer this discussion off-topic, but I am interested to hear your views regarding the "fighting intolerance with intolerance" standpoint. Your closing sentence perplexes me. It isn't the "first and only" action?it is the only action, in some cases; at least, the only action I've been able to conceive. Allowing same-sex couples to marry, by law, is being intolerant of those who are against it, isn't it? Or, is it not? If it isn't, then I probably can't think of an example whereby I'd have to fight intolerance with intolerance (so I will attempt to think of another example, if I can). If you believe it is, I ask, how else would we ensure same-sex marriage is allowed? We wouldn't be able to do so without being intolerant of those who oppose it, would we?

As I mention, we shouldn't turn this into a discussion about those other social issues, but the discussion of our views on intolerance is relevant to this debate.

What about your oppression of BSA's (what I assume to be) religious beliefs? How are your attacks against them - with your stated goals of either monetary ruin or policy change - not oppressing their beliefs? Do their beliefs not matter in pursuit of what you consider the "right" beliefs?

[Calum Veteran]

[. . .]

C'mon man, just 2 comments ago you stated, after correcting me on exactly what you desire, that the only 2 viable outcomes of protesting BSA is either they go out of business, or they change their policy. You've stated repeatedly that you don't want them to go out of business, now you're saying you don't want to change them. What exactly DO you hope to accomplish then?

[. . .]

I don't currently want to force them to change; I'd like to convince them to change. Two of the best ways of achieving that is to entice more people to support the cause and to expose the company for what they believe in.

[. . .]

What about your oppression of BSA's (what I assume to be) religious beliefs? How are your attacks against them - with your stated goals of either monetary ruin or policy change - not oppressing their beliefs? Do their beliefs not matter in pursuit of what you consider the "right" beliefs?

How do you believe I am oppressing them due to their religious beliefs? Unlike them, I am not currently forcing them into anything or denying them anything. They are currently denying people the freedom to join their organisation. Protesting and discussing their views is not oppressing them. Forcing them to accept gay and bisexual people would be oppression. I am not currently advocating that.

Having said that, to answer your question: No, their beliefs do not matter, because their beliefs lead to the oppression of innocent people. They are not innocent because they are currently oppressing innocent people, so if we were to oppress them for oppressing innocent people, we would not be oppressing innocent people (which is the immoral action I am fighting against). They're entitled to their view, but their view doesn't matter to me because they have no reasonable justification for it (they've told us why they believe what they do, and those justifications are not reasonable).

Them allowing gay and bisexual people to join and them having no problem with that would harm no one and oppress no one; however, them not allowing gay and bisexual people to join oppresses many.

[mudslag]

And objectively looking at the other side of that, how is it any different when a company, such as Chic Fil A for example, doing anything different by donating money to organizations who's sole purpose is to fight against equal rights of gays? Effectively both sides use money as influence for a end goal. The key difference here is it's usually the anit side that initiates it. How is that some how less intolerant?

I realize this thread is about the Boy Scouts but I used Chic Fil A as just an example of cause and effect.

The pro gay side wants to boycott Chic Fil A, this is in response to Chic Fil A donating money to anti gay organizations that support heterosexual marriages only. Correct me if Im wrong but part of your argument seems to be based on gays being intolerant of companies/organizations that attempt to keep them from equality, IE same sex marriage.

So if a company, any that supports that view, puts money forward towards keeping others from equal rights, isn't that intolerance?

How is the response of the pro-gay side, such as a boycott, which is essentially the other side of that financial coin, some how the intolerant one in this case?

Basically both sides are doing the same thing from a different perspective. The key here is that one side started the initial move, being the anti side. Hope that clears it up.

[theyarecomingforyou]

It really saddens me that such overt bigotry still exists, especially from an organisation as large and influential as the BSA. This means the next generation of children will grow up with the impression that gay people don't deserve the same rights as straight people. The BSA doesn't discriminate by skin colour so why does it discriminate by sexuality?

Yay! At least one organization isn't afraid to say "no" to the <snipped> agenda.

Gay is the new black.

I really hope you weren't comparing the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement and expressing your opposition to both, as that would be pretty sad in a modern society.

How is the response of the pro-gay side, such as a boycott, which is essentially the other side of that financial coin, some how the intolerant one in this case?

Because the "pro-gay side" is after equality, whereas the other side supports discrimination based upon sexuality.

[ANON86364]

Tolerance is a two way street. We're not talking about separate bathrooms, water fountains, etc. If you want to compare this to true discrimination, that's terrible.

[Calum Veteran]

Tolerance is a two way street. We're not talking about separate bathrooms, water fountains, etc. If you want to compare this to true discrimination, that's terrible.

No, you're not talking about separate bathrooms, water fountains, etc. you're talking about completely disallowing gay and bisexual people to use any of your bathrooms, water fountains, etc. by not allowing them to join your organisation merely because of their sexuality (which they can't even change). That is true unfair, unjust discrimination.

[ANON86364]

Public water fountains or private? See, it's not the same.

[mudslag]

Tolerance is a two way street. We're not talking about separate bathrooms, water fountains, etc. If you want to compare this to true discrimination, that's terrible.

Discrimination

1. an act or instance of discriminating.

2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment:

Why exactly? One side is basically told they can't participate or be apart of certain things strictly because of their sexual preference. That is discrimination.

[Colin McGregor]

[mudslag]

Public water fountains or private? See, it's not the same.

Straw man

[ANON86364]

Discrimination is an opinion. You can't go around bashing people who think differently than you. We're talking about a metaphorical private water fountain, not a public one. If it were public, gays would have no choice to use any water fountain used by non-gays.

[ccoltmanm]

Why should they be more tolerant? They are a private entity. I can open a private school where only inner city blacks and join. Straw man I know, using the argument that private businesses can do that.

[mudslag]

Discrimination is an opinion. You can't go around bashing people who think differently than you. We're talking about a metaphorical private water fountain, not a public one. If it were public, gays would have no choice to use any water fountain used by non-gays.

Not really, if you keep gays from getting married because your religion says marriage belongs to you, even though it doesn't, thats discrimination, period. That's not an opinion that's a fact. The issue isn't bashing the anti side for their opinions, it's bashing the anti side for their actions. If you can't understand that difference, you are truly ignorant. And metaphorically speaking, the water fountain is a terrible example.

[Xilo]

How is this any less acceptable than racial and gender based clubs, organizations, scholarships, TV channels, etc? If you argue for one but against another than you're just a hypocrite.

[SMELTN]

How is this any less acceptable than racial and gender based clubs, organizations, scholarships, TV channels, etc?

Oh don't get me started on that, considering this world has turned into "reverse racism" so bad its pathetic.

[Charisma Veteran]

I support this only if they will let the gay boys join the Girl Scouts instead. ;)

[Calum Veteran]

How is this any less acceptable than racial and gender based clubs, organizations, scholarships, TV channels, etc? If you argue for one but against another than you're just a hypocrite.

It's down to the BSA's motives and reasons for not allowing gay and bisexual people to join. I haven't looked into any organisations that discriminate against people for other reasons because I don't have to in order to know that this is wrong. If someone informs me of a group and their reasons for discriminating, I will mention whether I believe it is wrong and why.

[shockz]

I did the whole BSA thing... started as a Wolf in Cub Scouts.

The Cub Scouts was a fun time, camping, models, pinewood derby, helping others, etc... Once I got to Boy Scouts however, it was a completely different atmosphere. Bigoted views, rude leaders, politicizing everything... and it was the "right" way or the highway, almost boot camp like instructors at camps, terrible time basically. I didn't stick around long after that. If it wasn't the gay bashing it was the complete disrespect of people they didn't agree with, which seemed extremely hypocritical to me.

[Xilo]

It's down to the BSA's motives and reasons for not allowing gay and bisexual people to join. I haven't looked into any organisations that discriminate against people for other reasons because I don't have to in order to know that this is wrong. If someone informs me of a group and their reasons for discriminating, I will mention whether I believe it is wrong and why.

So you support one form of discrimination but not another. Pretty hypocritical there.

[Touchadowns]

I don't currently want to force them to change; I'd like to convince them to change. Two of the best ways of achieving that is to entice more people to support the cause and to expose the company for what they believe in.

How do you believe I am oppressing them due to their religious beliefs? Unlike them, I am not currently forcing them into anything or denying them anything. They are currently denying people the freedom to join their organisation. Protesting and discussing their views is not oppressing them. Forcing them to accept gay and bisexual people would be oppression. I am not currently advocating that.

Who are they "forcing"? Joining the Boy Scouts isn't compulsory in any way. They are a private organization. If you don't want to use their service because of their policies you don't. No one is being oppressed.

Having said that, to answer your question: No, their beliefs do not matter, because their beliefs lead to the oppression of innocent people. They are not innocent because they are currently oppressing innocent people, so if we were to oppress them for oppressing innocent people, we would not be oppressing innocent people (which is the immoral action I am fighting against). They're entitled to their view, but their view doesn't matter to me because they have no reasonable justification for it (they've told us why they believe what they do, and those justifications are not reasonable).

They have a reasonable justification, it's just that in your bigotry you believe their beliefs aren't as important as yours. They aren't actively trying to influence anyone else, they aren't trying to make someone else lose money or change their belief, they're just making a decision on how they're choosing to run their own company. You're acting like the BSA has roving bands of anti-gay militia out hunting men in kerchiefs with bad lisps.

Them allowing gay and bisexual people to join and them having no problem with that would harm no one and oppress no one; however, them not allowing gay and bisexual people to join oppresses many.

You think it wouldn't harm anyone, but you've already stated you don't care about their beliefs so your insight into what would or wouldn't harm the organization is tainted. They say it wouldn't jive with their beliefs, why can't you just accept that?

I realize this thread is about the Boy Scouts but I used Chic Fil A as just an example of cause and effect.

The pro gay side wants to boycott Chic Fil A, this is in response to Chic Fil A donating money to anti gay organizations that support heterosexual marriages only. Correct me if Im wrong but part of your argument seems to be based on gays being intolerant of companies/organizations that attempt to keep them from equality, IE same sex marriage.

So if a company, any that supports that view, puts money forward towards keeping others from equal rights, isn't that intolerance?

How is the response of the pro-gay side, such as a boycott, which is essentially the other side of that financial coin, some how the intolerant one in this case?

Basically both sides are doing the same thing from a different perspective. The key here is that one side started the initial move, being the anti side. Hope that clears it up.

Actively trying to push your beliefs onto others is wrong in my opinion. Chic Fil A, instead of having a simple company policy like the BSA, is to trying to influence the way others govern themselves and that is wrong. It's just as bigoted as Calum trying to force his beliefs on others just because he thinks they are "right".

[Calum Veteran]

So you support one form of discrimination but not another. Pretty hypocritical there.

There are different types and different levels of discrimination, so you should provide me with an example of what you mean. I don't support oppression of innocent people. When I choose to buy a Granny Smith apple over a Pink Lady apple, I'm discriminating, yet I don't believe that makes me hypocritical for not supporting the BSA's discrimination of gay and bisexual people.

[articuno1au]

I'd just weigh in here and say this is no different than them excluding girls (and for much the same reason).

The Boy Scouts are attempting to keep their proceedings innocent. Girls are excluded (among other reasons) to avoid any form of sexuality. Young homosexual kids would fly in the face of this idea.

Whilst I am not in favour of any form of anti-gay movement or excluding them for no reason, at least the Boy Scouts have a reason in this case.

/shrug.

[Xilo]

There are different types and different levels of discrimination, so you should provide me with an example of what you mean. I don't support oppression of innocent people. When I choose to buy a Granny Smith apple over a Pink Lady apple, I'm discriminating, yet I don't believe that makes me hypocritical for not supporting the BSA's discrimination of gay and bisexual people.

Oppression really only occurs if it's mandatory. BSA isn't forcing you to join.