us Boy Scouts of America keeps gay ban

[theyarecomingforyou]

Just for curiosity sake, would any of you have (as much) a problem with this if it was a LBGT group saying that straight people weren't allowed?

Yes.

[Knife Party]

no problem here.

[mudslag]

Those are some wild generalizations. I am sure there are many atheists that are also homophobic. There are also many religions that preach judgment, to show sin/evil, so you have a reason to want to be forgiven/saved. To answer the example and question, my post described hypocrisy. The post does not reference hypocrisy going in the other direction, because you don't tend to see that.

Im sure there are others outside the general religious boundaries but it's safe to say those within the boundaries of religion are the ones that pushes against homosexuality more so. So no it's not to wild of a generalization. Within that religious side, you can often find those that preach one thing but practice another.

[articuno1au]

<snipped out off-topic paragraph>

Yes yes yes, "protesting, debating and discussing" with a stated goal - YOUR STATED GOAL BTW - to either contribute to their financial ruin OR compel/shame/force them into changing their policy. These are your words from like 10 comments ago.

Denying someone something isn't oppression. I'm not oppressing my daughter when I deny her Kool Aid and Ice Cream for dinner.

Let me ask you this, have you ever thought to look at this from a perspective other than your own? Of course you haven't, the idea is most likely repugnant to you. You believe anyone with opinions contrary to your own are evil and wrong, therefore you're comfortable believing a change in policy would not hurt anyone. It's funny how you're a champion against evil oppression, yet are perfectly fine oppressing people you've deemed not as morally pure as you. You're no worse than a bible thumping theocrat. Your way is the divine, unchallenged truth because you say so, damn anyone else that thinks otherwise.

<snipped out reply to off-topic paragraph>

I'm going to pass on line 2.

Agree with line 3.

Kind of agree here. I think he just argues passionately without consideration for how his language looks to someone with a more literary background. I don't believe he is so shallow minded as to think his opinion is the only right opinion.

And you finished superbly, bravo. The irony of the stark contrast of your opening and closing not withstanding, I agree with most of what you have said.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Calum

[theyarecomingforyou]

<snipped out reply to off-topic paragraph>

Denying someone something isn't oppression. I'm not oppressing my daughter when I deny her Kool Aid and Ice Cream for dinner.

No, but denying it to your son for not being a girl would be oppressive/discriminatory.

Let me ask you this, have you ever thought to look at this from a perspective other than your own? Of course you haven't, the idea is most likely repugnant to you. You believe anyone with opinions contrary to your own are evil and wrong, therefore you're comfortable believing a change in policy would not hurt anyone.

That was not his position at all. The point he made was that such a ban is discriminatory and perpetuates inequality, which is a well reasoned and valid position. And he stated that he was open to other positions but simply did not agree with them.

In the UK all scout groups must legally accept girls, so there isn't even any gender discrimination. The BSA is institutionally sexist and homophobic and it is very sad that Americans tolerate it.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Calum

[Noir Angel]

I love that we live in a world today, were if we do not accept everyone's views we are bashed.

Can you give a single rational reason why people should be obliged to accept exclusionary bigotry?

But that's not your end goal, you've stated you want to attack them and hurt their business until they comply with what you think is right. You have no regard for why they hold these views, you just want to destroy them until they are forced to change them. That's the definition of intolerance.

Why they hold those views isn't really relevant, they receive public money therefore they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate.

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.

So it's OK to be a raging homophobe, but not OK to criticise someone for being a raging homophobe? yeah there's no hypocrisy there!

Gang, please be careful when grouping everyone into a single category of 'religion/religious' - I think some see extremists as the-end-all-be-all of everything religion-related. There are Christians that have extremely different beliefs from what is considered Catholic, for example.

The vast majority of Americans that are homophobes are that way for religious reasons.

[ANON86364]

So it's OK to be a raging homophobe, but not OK to criticise someone for being a raging homophobe? yeah there's no hypocrisy there!

I said you can't go around bashing people over a difference in opinion. How is that debatable at all?

[Noir Angel]

Homophobia is all about bashing people because you don't like the way they live their lives. Why should bigoted asshats be immune from criticism? People might have freedom of speech, but that doesn't give us an obligation to pretend that their bigoted hate is some kind of special flower that needs to be protected from criticism.

[shakey]

Homophobia is all about bashing people because you don't like the way they live their lives. Why should bigoted asshats be immune from criticism? People might have freedom of speech, but that doesn't give us an obligation to pretend that their bigoted hate is some kind of special flower that needs to be protected from criticism.

People might have freedom of speech, but that doesn't give us an obligation to pretend that their bigoted hate is some kind of special flower that needs to be protected from criticism.

People might have freedom of speech, but that doesn't give us an obligation to pretend that their bigoted hate is some kind of special flower that needs to be protected from criticism.

People might have freedom of speech, but that doesn't give us an obligation to pretend that their bigoted hate is some kind of special flower that needs to be protected from criticism.

People might have freedom of speech, but that doesn't give us an obligation to pretend that their bigoted hate is some kind of special flower that needs to be protected from criticism.

People might have freedom of speech, but that doesn't give us an obligation to pretend that their bigoted hate is some kind of special flower that needs to be protected from criticism.

People might have freedom of speech, but that doesn't give us an obligation to pretend that their bigoted hate is some kind of special flower that needs to be protected from criticism.

[Calum Veteran]

[. . .]

Yes yes yes, "protesting, debating and discussing" with a stated goal - YOUR STATED GOAL BTW - to either contribute to their financial ruin OR compel/shame/force them into changing their policy. These are your words from like 10 comments ago.

[. . .]

No. Those are your words. I have never used the word "force" and I didn't even use the word "shame." You used both of those words. From "like 10 comments ago," I mentioned that telling the public what they believe can often lead to the company publicly changing their position. As I keep pointing out to you, that would be entirely the choice of the company. They wouldn't have to change their opinion. It's hilarious that you believe I'd be forcing them to change their opinion by merely telling others what their opinion is, but you don't believe the company is forcing themselves to change their opinion by broadcasting it in the first place. After all, I am doing nothing differently to the company. The company has broadcast its opinion and told people who heard that, and I am further broadcasting their message, telling people who hear what I say. Yet you're stating that I'm forcing them to change their opinion by doing that :s What you're saying doesn't make sense.

Denying someone something isn't oppression. I'm not oppressing my daughter when I deny her Kool Aid and Ice Cream for dinner.

Again, I didn't say it was. I said denying someone something for no justifiable reason is oppression. I didn't make up the definition. The definition is in the dictionary, which I linked you to. As it has been explained to you and proven to you, why are you denying what is fact? I don't like bringing up the idea that it is oppression, but the dictionary doesn't lie, and as it's true, pointing out that powerfully concerning fact makes sense.

Your analogy is ridiculous because most people know that Kool Aid and ice cream isn't a particularly healthy dinner for a kid, so that would be a justifiable reason to deny them it.

[. . .]

Let me ask you this, have you ever thought to look at this from a perspective other than your own? Of course you haven't, the idea is most likely repugnant to you.

[. . .]

I have thought to look at it from perspectives other than my own. I do so all the time. So why do you lie and state that I haven't? Your lying is despicable, and you've lied quite a few times throughout this topic, in a terrible effort to misrepresent my views.

I look at every issue from every perspective I'm aware of in order to determine what the best conclusion is.

I have tried many times to sympathise with religious people, knowing that they believe what they're doing is right. But I have always come to the conclusion that them believing they're right does not justify their ignorance and bigotry. If I explain to a religious person how they're harming those they're helping to oppress, providing reason and logic, and they state that they won't change their view, I'll deem that ignorant. Put yourself in my perspective: How else could I deem that? I accept that they have a different opinion to me, but I still cannot allow the oppression to continue.

[. . .]

You believe anyone with opinions contrary to your own are evil and wrong, therefore you're comfortable believing a change in policy would not hurt anyone.

[. . .]

That is not correct. I constantly invite people to prove me wrong. My opinions are not absolute?they are always subject to change, if someone can reasonably explain to me why they should. I have told you that many times in this thread, so why do you continue to lie? You've seriously harmed any credibility you may have originally had, by constantly lying.

I believe a change in policy would not hurt or harm anyone because that is what I have deemed logical, after much thought and consideration of all possible issues. As you're the person implying harm could result, I've asked you a few times to explain what harm you believe could be caused, but you've failed to do so. That, of course, is not surprising to me, considering my view on this is a result of logic and reason.

[. . .]

It's funny how you're a champion against evil oppression, yet are perfectly fine oppressing people you've deemed not as morally pure as you.

[. . .]

In what way do you believe I am oppressing other people? All I am doing is debating, discussing, and protesting. Are you suggesting you deem any of those three accepted activities to be oppression, or are you just lying and misrepresenting my viewpoint yet again?

[. . .]

You're no worse than a bible thumping theocrat. Your way is the divine, unchallenged truth because you say so, damn anyone else that thinks otherwise.

Wrong again and another lie. I have told you more than once that my mind is always open to changing. This is the final straw. I am now going to speak to the other supervisors to see if there is anything we can agree to do about people who constantly intentionally misrepresent other people's views. What you're doing is unacceptable. I've told you my view and you state that my view is something completely different. That is a terrible thing to do, it is unacceptable, and it should not be allowed.

[Shiranui]

Much of America (No, of course not all of it) hates gays, loves guns and violence, rejects evolution and LOVES the god of Abraham.

America = part of the Middle East?

[Windows7even]

Private orginization...they can let in whomever they like..government can't do jack squat about it.

[Noir Angel]

Private orginization...they can let in whomever they like..government can't do jack squat about it.

They're not a completely private organisation, they receive public money.

[Touchadowns]

<snipped out response to off-topic paragraph>

No. Those are your words. I have never used the word "force" and I didn't even use the word "shame."

You used both of those words. From "like 10 comments ago," I mentioned that telling the public what they believe can often lead to the company publicly changing their position. As I keep pointing out to you, that would be entirely the choice of the company. They wouldn't have to change their opinion. It's hilarious that you believe I'd be forcing them to change their opinion by merely telling others what their opinion is,

This is really your most ridiculous argument. If you constantly call a company wrong and evil for having a policy you don't agree with your end goal is obviously to get that policy to change. You've stated this as one of your goals (the other being monetary ruin). You're not "telling others what their opinion is", you're telling others what your opinion is of their policy, with the goal of FORCING the company - out of shame, or to just shut people up - into changing the policy you're relentless attacking. It really boggles my mind how your view of your own actions can be so skewed.

Again, I didn't say it was. I said denying someone something for no justifiable reason is oppression. I didn't make up the definition. The definition is in the dictionary, which I linked you to. As it has been explained to you and proven to you, why are you denying what is fact? I don't like bringing up the idea that it is oppression, but the dictionary doesn't lie, and as it's true, pointing out that powerfully concerning fact makes sense.

Your analogy is ridiculous because most people know that Kool Aid and ice cream isn't a particularly healthy dinner for a kid, so that would be a justifiable reason to deny them it.

It's not oppression, if anything it's discrimination which isn't always a bad thing. I have a "senior living facility" down the road from my house, they don't accept anyone under 50, am I being oppressed because I can't live there? No, I'm being discriminated against because of my age, but it's not bad. Quit saying this is oppression, or hilariously comparing it to Apartheid as you did earlier. All of that verbiage is meant to generate an emotional response and nothing else. It's a disingenious debate tactic employed by rank amatuers and people unable to defend their positions with facts or reason.

I have thought to look at it from perspectives other than my own. I do so all the time. So why do you lie and state that I haven't? Your lying is despicable, and you've lied quite a few times throughout this topic, in a terrible effort to misrepresent my views.

I look at every issue from every perspective I'm aware of in order to determine what the best conclusion is.

No you didn't, as evidenced by your statement below you came into this with a hatred or dislike of anyone religious and that clouded your reasoning from the outset.

I have tried many times to sympathise with religious people, knowing that they believe what they're doing is right. But I have always come to the conclusion that them believing they're right does not justify their ignorance and bigotry. If I explain to a religious person how they're harming those they're helping to oppress, providing reason and logic, and they state that they won't change their view, I'll deem that ignorant. Put yourself in my perspective: How else could I deem that? I accept that they have a different opinion to me, but I still cannot allow the oppression to continue.

I think this paragraph really gets to the meat of your bigotry. You hate anyone religious, therefore you hate any policy that may have a basis in religion. The way you dismiss "relgious people" and have come to the conclusion that they are all "ignorant" and like to "oppress" people it's all very similar to how a racist KKK member talks.

Now I'm sure you'll do your typical "no no wait, you misunderstood me!" schtick, but it's old at this point. You're a <snipped> that hates and degrades anyone that is religious because you feel you're superior.

I'm an atheist - been one long before it was trendy to be one - and <snipped> like you just give us a bad name.

In what way do you believe I am oppressing other people? All I am doing is debating, discussing, and protesting. Are you suggesting you deem any of those three accepted activities to be oppression, or are you just lying and misrepresenting my viewpoint yet again?

You're not CURRENTLY oppressing anyone, but your desire - your goal - is to force BSA to change the policy you've stated you disagree with. You may say "but I'm just discussing!" but you're not, when you compare the policy to South African Apartheid you are not "discussing", you are attacking for the purpose of souring it in people's minds and getting BSA to change the policy, which would be oppressing their beliefs.

Wrong again and another lie. I have told you more than once that my mind is always open to changing. This is the final straw. I am now going to speak to the other supervisors to see if there is anything we can agree to do about people who constantly intentionally misrepresent other people's views. What you're doing is unacceptable. I've told you my view and you state that my view is something completely different. That is a terrible thing to do, it is unacceptable, and it should not be allowed.

Really? what a blatantly transparent attempt at intimidation and an abuse of power. It's also a perfect example of what I said earlier, Your way is the divine, unchallenged truth because you say so, and you'll call mommy and daddy if anyone dares question you.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Calum
Personal attacks are against our rules. Attack the view, not the member

[Calum Veteran]

Thread cleaned

This thread was becoming significantly off-topic; something I realise I'm guilty of contributing to, due to replying to an off-topic paragraph.

I have now cleaned this thread and moved some of your posts to Official: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues. Your posts start appearing from Page 287 onward. I tried to save as many posts as I could, but I couldn't copy over the views expressed in those posts that contained other content relevant to this discussion, so I had to snip out those parts. Still, you should be able to carry on your discussion in that thread :)

This thread cannot be a discussion regarding general LGBT issues (that is what we have the official thread for). We must keep this thread to the topic of the Boy Scouts's policy mentioned in the initial post.

Thank you for you co-operation :)

[Calum Veteran]

[. . .]

I think this paragraph really gets to the meat of your bigotry. You hate anyone religious, therefore you hate any policy that may have a basis in religion. The way you dismiss "relgious people" and have come to the conclusion that they are all "ignorant" and like to "oppress" people it's all very similar to how a racist KKK member talks.

Now I'm sure you'll do your typical "no no wait, you misunderstood me!" schtick, but it's old at this point. You're a <snipped> that hates and degrades anyone that is religious because you feel you're superior.

I'm an atheist - been one long before it was trendy to be one - and <snipped> like you just give us a bad name.

[. . .]

I will reply to the other parts of your post later, when I have more time. But I wanted to point this out to all who are reading: This part of your post is a great example of what I'm talking about when I point out that you're lying and misrepresenting my views.

You terribly, indecently, erroneously state "You hate anyone religious." Considering the post of mine you quoted when you wrote that, and all of my 11,750 posts in other threads, that statement of yours is absurd, and the fact you lied like that (even if you did it unintentionally) is preposterous!

I don't know whether you're doing this intentionally or not, but if you are doing this unintentionally, you must be more careful, because it is unacceptable and highly indecent.

I do not hate anyone religious. I hate very few people in life, if anyone, and I respect everyone's right to form, hold, and broadcast religious beliefs (that doesn't mean I have to respect the beliefs themselves, though).

I will reply to this quote in full later, as well as the other parts of your post. But I felt compelled to point out that you're lying, with an example this time, because such an unacceptable manner of debating will lead those who have not read my posts to believe I hold a belief that I do not.

Disgusting.

[Touchadowns]

I will reply to the other parts of your post later, when I have more time. But I wanted to point this out to all who are reading: This part of your post is a great example of what I'm talking about when I point out that you're lying and misrepresenting my views.

You terribly, indecently, erroneously state "You hate anyone religious." Considering the post of mine you quoted when you wrote that, and all of my 11,750 posts in other threads, that statement of yours is absurd, and the fact you lied like that (even if you did it unintentionally) is preposterous!

I don't know whether you're doing this intentionally or not, but if you are doing this unintentionally, you must be more careful, because it is unacceptable and highly indecent.

I do not hate anyone religious. I hate very few people in life, if anyone, and I respect everyone's right to form, hold, and broadcast religious beliefs (that doesn't mean I have to respect the beliefs themselves, though).

I will reply to this quote in full later, as well as the other parts of your post. But I felt compelled to point out that you're lying, with an example this time, because such an unacceptable manner of debating will lead those who have not read my posts to believe I hold a belief that I do not.

Disgusting.

When you make blanket statements about "religious people" that they are full of "ignorance and bigotry" and that are "harming those they are helping to oppress" you come off sounding like a typical anti-religious bigot. You didn't make any specific charges about specific topics regarding that group of people or who they are oppressing and being bigots towards, you just made a blanket charge that these "religious people" are ignorant bigots oppressing people. It's pretty much like the ignorant racist that says all the "black people" are stealing their women or all the "Mexicans" are stealing our jobs, it's a blanket condemnation of millions of people under the guise of being enlightened.

Also, I love the admonishment in your edit of my previous post to "Attack the view, not the member" after repeatedly calling me a liar for disagreeing with your opinions.

[DocM]

^^____ You noticed that too, 'eh?

We spend hour after hour, year after year, trying to do good works though our church; food kitchens, taking care of pregnant girls, aid to the aged, poor & handicapped, disaster relief, trucking busloads of us hundreds of miles to take part in Freedom March's in the 1960's etc., then get hit with this kind of ignorant crap from online know-nothings.

Yeah, we're really oppressing them.

[Calum Veteran]

When you make blanket statements about "religious people" that they are full of "ignorance and bigotry" and that are "harming those they are helping to oppress" you come off sounding like a typical anti-religious bigot. You didn't make any specific charges about specific topics regarding that group of people or who they are oppressing and being bigots towards, you just made a blanket charge that these "religious people" are ignorant bigots oppressing people. It's pretty much like the ignorant racist that says all the "black people" are stealing their women or all the "Mexicans" are stealing our jobs, it's a blanket condemnation of millions of people under the guise of being enlightened.

What a ridiculous conclusion. I was asked if I'd ever looked at these views from perspectives other than my own. I was asked about perspectives, not specific opinions, so I answered your question by mentioning a perspective: a religious perspective. I wasn't asked to comment on a specific topic, nor was I asked for examples of specific religious people. I didn't generalise by stating all religious people; I spoke about the religious people that are ignorant and bigoted. That is not a blanket statement because, from my experience, some religious people are ignorant and bigoted. It is ridiculous that you're condemning me for implying that some religious people are ignorant and bigoted, especially when I mention experience in this regard. Religious people are capable of being so, in case you didn't know.

It is not pretty much like racists who say "all black people [. . .]" or "all the Mexicans [. . .]", because I didn't state or imply all religious people! I was talking about some religious people! My post does not indicate in any way that I was referring to all religious people! If I don't state "all religious people" you cannot reasonably assume I'm referring to all religious people. "I have tried many times to sympathise with religious people" is a statement that refers to more than one religious person, but nothing in that statement suggests I'm talking about all religious people, like you have implied I am!

As I mention in my next paragraph, you have now gone way too far with your indecent method of debating, your lying, your assuming, and your disgusting maliciousness, so I will no longer discuss issues with you on Neowin. Please stop replying to me.

Also, I love the admonishment in your edit of my previous post to "Attack the view, not the member" after repeatedly calling me a liar for disagreeing with your opinions.

Yet again, you're lying. I didn't call you a liar for disagreeing with my opinions. I called you a liar for completely lying about my views and misrepresenting them. The lack of remorse you've shown in this post of yours indicates you have no problem debating in such a terrible manner and that you may well be doing it on purpose. People who actually like being disgusting and indecent are terrible people.

I am through reply to you. I don't wish to speak with people who knowingly misrepresent my views and lie about my views, even if the reason they're doing it is because they cannot refute the actual views I've posted.

[Touchadowns]

I have tried many times to sympathise with religious people....

You didn't say "some" religious people, you said religious people period.

[Jaybonaut]

The arguments I put forth there were specific to this case. Could you expand on your point with examples, please? :)

Yes, I can. I haven't decided if I will at some point when I have more time.

[Jaybonaut]

Im sure there are others outside the general religious boundaries but it's safe to say those within the boundaries of religion are the ones that pushes against homosexuality more so. So no it's not to wild of a generalization. Within that religious side, you can often find those that preach one thing but practice another.

Thankfully, you can rewrite that same sentence this way, and it stays 100% true:

"Within any group of people, you can often find those that preach one thing but practice another."

[Jaybonaut]

The vast majority of Americans that are homophobes are that way for religious reasons.

No, I'm pretty sure that's a guess.

[Jaybonaut]

Homophobia is all about bashing people because you don't like the way they live their lives. Why should bigoted asshats be immune from criticism? People might have freedom of speech, but that doesn't give us an obligation to pretend that their bigoted hate is some kind of special flower that needs to be protected from criticism.

That argument can be used in reverse. Earlier there was a question of why homophobic behavior is intolerable but homosexuality has to be tolerable - they are different lifestyles with different beliefs, upbringings, and feelings.

[nominak]

That argument can be used in reverse. Earlier there was a question of why homophobic behavior is intolerable but homosexuality has to be tolerable - they are different lifestyles with different beliefs, upbringings, and feelings.

Of course they're different. One was born that way, the other wasn't. One is hurtful, the other isn't.