Boy Scouts of America keeps gay ban

By +Frank B.
in Real World News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Memphis

Posted
Posted

Thank you. That is great to hear :) I do try to be fair, respectable, and reasonable at all times (at least, when people aren't rude to me), with both my views and my debating, even if I may have slipped up at any time in the past.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, and you used a great example there (the rights and freedoms of nudists). I cannot argue against anything you've said there because I completely agree with that. I know that greatly weakens (if not nullifies) my position on the Boy Scouts's policy :p but I wouldn't disagree with someone when they've proven me wrong or raised a point I cannot reasonably argue with.

I dislike the Boy Scouts's policy because of their apparent reasons for it (along with their views regarding same-sex attraction), yet I have no problem with Hooters's policy. If I made an exception for Hooters but not the Boy Scouts or another organisation, I could be deemed hypocritical, couldn't I? It would certainly be unfair.

I think it is still fine for me to respectfully disagree with the Boy Scouts's policy and send them feedback about it, hoping that they will one day allow gay and bisexual people to join. But I must look at it from others' points of view: Some people will understandably have different views to me regarding Hooters's policy or the policies of other companies that I agree with. Going back to your example, I see nothing wrong with nudists and I'd have no problem with people walking around streets naked, but I should deem it understandable that some people do have a problem with that.

I am glad we can come to agree on this! My basic philosophy is freedom of association and the freedom to not associate. I may not like certain clubs or organizations because of who they choose not to associate with, but I don't want to limits anyone's rights of association especially mine so I tolerate it. That said, I agree with the left on this part, cut public funding for all groups that discriminate period. Sadly, the far right and far left in this thread will continue to ignore the constructive debate and voice of reason you and I have been willing to show in this conversation. You know from conversations we have had over the years on Neowin that I have become a libertarian instead of a conservative and no longer support suppression of homosexuals even though I still disagree as much as I did back then with them, freedom for all is the single most important concept humanity has came up with, living our lives in our communities by our standards while not suppressing those who choose their own standards for their life.

Grand Master

Jaybonaut

Posted
Posted

Ok, I guess I need to take this step-by-step and slow it down.

Where did I say I can't dispute what you said? Please use a direct quote.

...of course you couldn't do this, you made up a lie as I never said that.

Here's the truth: someone is searching for argument ammo.

The group reference is so generalized - it makes me snicker at the stupidity of lumping Scientologists, Satanists, Buddhists, Christians of all denominations, Nuwaubianists, etc into one group and wildly claim without any evidence whatsoever that they all portray homophobic behavior more often than those without a religious label taped to their heads.

I was referencing you here, as you lumped everyone together when making your claim. This is what you replied with:

Last I check much of those are still considered religious for the most part.

What? No one questioned that, I brought up many religions that vastly differ from each other. Maybe when I mention levels of intolerance you will mention that the 'last I check, the sky was blue' or something, to toss random statements in there to throw me off.

Now here is the kicker, I never once claimed all religious people are homophobic or anti gay marriage.

You generally referenced it, true:

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.

It was actually Javik that said it more directly:

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

Grand Master

mudslag

Posted
Posted

I know Javik was the one that made the initial statement. Your reply was that you were sure that was a guess. You and I played a game of back and forth of ###### for tat. Pretty much this whole time, all Iv been looking for is a simple answer as to why you think it's a guess. You're on this kick about generalizing but even if it is a bit of generalization about pointing out the religious are the majority behind a movement, that in no way means it still can't be true. What's funny is how you whine about generalization then turn around and make one about me.

What? No one questioned that, I brought up many religions that vastly differ from each other. Maybe when I mention levels of intolerance you will mention that the 'last I check, the sky was blue' or something, to toss random statements in there to throw me off.

Right there is a generalization about what you think I would say if you mention levels of intolerance.

So let me make this super easy for you.

I don't think all religious people are homophobic/anti-gay/anti same sex marriage/ect....

I don't think all of those who are homophobic/anti-gay/anti same sex marriage/ect....are religious. (cause lets be honest there are some)

I do believe the majority of those who are against homosexuality/same sex marriage/whatever... mainly fall within religious boundaries. This covers any religion.

So if you still find this a generalization, so be it, it still doesn't make it wrong. Iv given the reasons why I think that. If you disagree or think it's a guess, then just answer why.

  • nekkidtruth
  • Like 1
Grand Master

Jaybonaut

Posted
Posted

I know Javik was the one that made the initial statement. Your reply was that you were sure that was a guess. You and I played a game of back and forth of ###### for tat. Pretty much this whole time, all Iv been looking for is a simple answer as to why you think it's a guess. You're on this kick about generalizing but even if it is a bit of generalization about pointing out the religious are the majority behind a movement, that in no way means it still can't be true. What's funny is how you whine about generalization then turn around and make one about me.

Right there is a generalization about what you think I would say if you mention levels of intolerance.

So let me make this super easy for you.

I don't think all religious people are homophobic/anti-gay/anti same sex marriage/ect....

I don't think all of those who are homophobic/anti-gay/anti same sex marriage/ect....are religious. (cause lets be honest there are some)

I do believe the majority of those who are against homosexuality/same sex marriage/whatever... mainly fall within religious boundaries. This covers any religion.

So if you still find this a generalization, so be it, it still doesn't make it wrong. Iv given the reasons why I think that. If you disagree or think it's a guess, then just answer why.

That wasn't a generalization, it was a sarcastic scenario I made up as a reflection of how much sense your reply made to me. I am glad you now agree with my statement that he was guessing, which is what this was all about.

Grand Master

mudslag

Posted
Posted

That wasn't a generalization, it was a sarcastic scenario I made up as a reflection of how much sense your reply made to me. I am glad you now agree with my statement that he was guessing, which is what this was all about.

Maybe you can elaborate on that.

Mentor

Sylar0

Posted
Posted

Lol I see no one cared for my speech last night but I?ll say it again equality cannot be based on "I have a right (you don?t or shouldn?t have) to not be around the gays". Replace "the gays" with "the blacks" and its racism. I have yet to hear on this entire thread a valid reason for not allowing gay people into the scouts.

Grand Master

*RedBull*

Posted
Posted

Hey stop getting ur panties in a bunch. Gay is not a race not genetically determined and is a fundamental right. Gays have the right to be gay. Just not the right to join a private organization which is not in support of such a life style choice. Oh well. Gay scouts of America is still an option. Tell you what, I'll go ahead an start it for gays to practice tying knots and earning badges like BSOA do. It will be just like but better. Scout leaders and scouts will be gay. Heterosexuals need not apply. Just pm me if you want to join.

Grand Master

ANON86364

Posted
Posted

Out of curiosity, if you were a young kid wanting to join the Boy Scouts of America, how would you feel if they told you that you couldn't join "because they feel like it," but all of your friends could join?

As a young person sure, I could imagine many feelings going through my head being excluded. As a young person, however, I wouldn't understand the politics in the matter either. If this was my child, I would tell him that not everyone believes the same things and sometimes people are ignorant. But it's for them to find the truth, not for us to force it on them.

Grand Master

theyarecomingforyou

Posted
Posted

It is a club and they can choose who they associate with. You'll have to elaborate on how that is not valid and how forcing them to do the opposite is.

So clubs should be allowed to not to allow black people in?

Grand Master

M_Lyons10

Posted
Posted

The BSA is entitled to make its own rules. Those who disagree are free not to join.

The BSA is entitled to make its own rules. Those who disagree are free not to join.

Yeah, but how do you explain that to a kid that wants to be in the boy scouts? The kid can join, but unlike ALL of the other kids whose parents are involved, his aren't allowed to participate? This policy is hurting the kids more than anything else. And kids of heterosexual couples would be as unaffected by allowing it as they are by disallowing it.

Additionally, an organization that gets the breaks from our various state and federal governments that BSA gets, shouldn't be permitted to discriminate against a group. It's homosexual tax dollars that subsidize their offices and such too. Heck, though they were talking about changing it because of their discriminatory policies, Philadelphia only charges them $ 1 a year in rent for their rather large facilities in that city. Tax dollars shouldn't be subsidizing a group that discriminates period. If they were completely self funded, that would be different.

Forbidding gay kids means they'll be bullied even more - if they accepted gays, tolerance would probably go up.

Agreed. Intolerance and bigotry is something learned.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • Google's new hand-wave reCAPTCHA can be bypassed with a stock photo

      By excalpius · Posted

      I'm not unblocking my camera for this crapola. Sorry, Google.
    • Microsoft Edge gets tons of security features, including AI model that can see your screen

      By ShahinD · Posted

      It seems these features are for Business Profiles
    • Microsoft Edge gets tons of security features, including AI model that can see your screen

      By Snake Doc · Posted

      Ummmm that is what is it supposed to do. Just turn if off in settings if you do not want it analyzing your open tabs. Chrome does the same thing with Gemini. Sarfari will do the samething after Apple's AI and even more so with the release of their 27 versions that is now powered by Googles LLM/ML models. Understanding why it is doing it and how it can help you vs jumping to some conspiracy theroy is a much better approach. As long as it can be turned off, all is good. Yes the default should be off but the a lot of people would never discover these features.
    • Microsoft Edge gets tons of security features, including AI model that can see your screen

      By WaltC · Posted

      Just another reason (aside from many others) not to use Edge. Firefox 153.0b5 DEx64 has a similar feature added recently in prior builds that I will turn off at some point when I get around to it. It's the new "Something looks suspicious" page that pops up here and there. It cleverly hides itself between web pages that I've actually visited; as a result, you know, of selecting a web page and telling the browser where to go. The interesting thing is that it does not produce these warnings from pages that I, as the only intelligent user of the browser in my system, have ever directed the browser to open! What seems to be happening is that the browser looks at all the goofy ad links on a web page I do actually open and selects one that "looks suspicious" and then creates the "something looks suspicious" web page, which is neatly inserted, as mentioned, between web pages my RB ("real brain") has directed the browser to load in a session. The thing is, I usually look at links I am considering to follow before I ask the browser to load them, and in cases I have noticed where the link does indeed look suspicious, most of the time I will choose to not follow the link at all. Doesn't everyone do this or something similar? I am picky about what I voluntarily load... (I don't like links that start off fine, with a site designaiton that seems normal enough but then is followed by indecipherable alphanumeric strings many, many lines long, etc. I tend to reject those because they look suspicious. They may not be, but I don't care... I'll stay with Firefox, of course, if for no other reason than they usually let you turn off the junk you don't like. And because it isn't Edge... But at some point Microsoft will come to realize that putting your bookmarks on the left side is a Good Thing for a lot of people, just as Microsoft discovered when it had the bright idea of nailing the Windows taskbar to the bottom of the screen, when for decades Microsoft browsers had left that placement up to the user. They have finally reversed the obscenity of that decision. Finally.
    • Google's new hand-wave reCAPTCHA can be bypassed with a stock photo

      By Ccl Ncc · Posted

      Google was using the old CATPCHAs data to train their LLMs. What is the say they won't use this camera data of users to train their LLM? these companies need some strict regulations!

  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      BA the Curmudgeon earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Conversation Starter
      rosiecharles earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      KMilenkoski1202 earned a badge
      First Post
    • First Post
      carols23 earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      Tom Willson earned a badge
      One Month Later

  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      513
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      259
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      94
    5. 5
      macoman
      66
    Show More

  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!