us Boy Scouts of America keeps gay ban

[mudslag]

You made the claim, and I denied it, where did you backup your claim? I didn't make a claim, I just denied yours.

And I gave a basis for that claim for which you didn't bother to try to dispute with anything other then just a no, that's a guess. Which without at least a basis is more of a guess on your part.

[Jaybonaut]

I don't recall implying that. It's the same as religious belief and everything else, you want to be a bigot do it in your own home, don't try and force the public to buy into your bigotry.

Thankfully, I don't think I have heard or seen much of that, but I have seen people slam others for being homophobic.

And I gave a basis for that claim for which you didn't bother to try to dispute with anything other then just a no, that's a guess. Which without at least a basis is more of a guess on your part.

Not at all, you gave no basis whatsoever for the claim - you just said that's how it is.

[mudslag]

Not at all, you gave no basis whatsoever for the claim - you just said that's how it is.

I did you might want to go back and read. Again can you or can you not back up your counter claim that the religious are not the majority against homosexuality? Either you can or you can't. I can only take by you running in circles and avoiding answering the question that you can't.

[Jaybonaut]

I did you might want to go back and read. Again can you or can you not back up your counter claim that the religious are not the majority against homosexuality? Either you can or you can't. I can only take by you running in circles and avoiding answering the question that you can't.

Oh, you missed the part where I stated I made no claim, I am only denying yours - I reread all your posts, and haven't found a basis for your claim, nor any proof.

[mudslag]

Oh, you missed the part where I stated I made no claim, I am only denying yours - I reread all your posts, and haven't found a basis for your claim, nor any proof.

You said it's a guess and you are denying what has been put forth by myself and others, so Im trying to figure out what you base that on? Specially given that majority who tend to speak out (there are plenty of examples) are religious and use their religion as a basis for speaking out. The majority who fight against same sex marriage also tend to be religious based organizations. I have yet to see a non religious organization who has fought against it. I don't see or have heard of any non religious bases reasons against same sex marriage. So when you say it's just a guess that it's mostly the religious side fighting against it, that's not really true.

So Im going to ask again, what is your basis for saying it's a guess? It's not a hard question to answer. Can you show anything to show that the majority that are against homosexuality and/or same sex marriage do not come from a basis of religion?

[Bryan R.]

Total crap, a private organisation isn't private when it's being given public money.

It's fine if you have a problem with a private company getting public money but it doesn't change the fact that it's still private. By the way, do you have financial records of this "public money"?

[Noir Angel]

It's fine if you have a problem with a private company getting public money but it doesn't change the fact that it's still private. By the way, do you have financial records of this "public money"?

If it receives public money, it should abide by discrimination laws. I'm sure your position would soon flip flop if it were Christians being told they were not welcome in a group receiving public funding

As for evidence? http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/bsa.html plenty more information for those that can use Google as well.

[Bryan R.]

If it receives public money, it should abide by discrimination laws. I'm sure your position would soon flip flop if it were Christians being told they were not welcome in a group receiving public funding

You see, you really need to stay away from generalizations. It's laughable that you would consider me religious for my views on this when that couldn't be any further from the truth. Not that you would know, of course.

[Sylar0]

I have skim read this thread I am starting to like Americans less and less on the whole not all of you but any of you who believe equality is something to do with if an organisation is public or private, or that some magical document called the constitution protects your right to discriminate. I am glad I live in a nation where it?s illegal period to disallow gay people anything because you don?t like their sexuality, land of the free yer right America. Explain to me homophobic people other than ?I don?t like gays because of X (insert religion personal beliefs etc.) what affect it would have on the organisation to allow homosexual peoples into it? Sorry but America again seems to have something wrong what ignorance freedom isn?t freedom to discriminate. Freedom is equality for all not separation and segregation. In the UK what passes for free speech would see many American?s in jail and gladly so for the UK has learned freedom is not the freedom to hate.

[Bryan R.]

Society as a whole is progressing toward equality for gays. In the meantime, you can't force people to accept others' views. That's when you become the same as them.

[nominak]

Society as a whole is progressing toward equality for gays. In the meantime, you can't force people to accept others' views. That's when you become the same as them.

So you're saying that people are gonna catch "the gay" by accepting them for who they are? Gotcha. Same old homophobic response.

[Bryan R.]

So you're saying that people are gonna catch "the gay" by accepting them for who they are? Gotcha. Same old homophobic response.

I don't know where you get that from. I'm not anti-gay, I'm not religious, and I'm more Libertarian than anything. Does that help you generalize more?

[Quikboy]

People need to take a chill pill. Organizations like Boy Scouts do more good than bad. You can keep harping about it, but it seems unlikely their decisions will change anytime soon. If you don't like it, don't associate with them. The policy is probably superficial in enforcement in most cases because unless a child knows and publicly acknowledges this, it's pretty hard to just kick a child out for that. There's nothing compelling a child to release such information anyway.

Boy Scouts are a pretty important way to get children involved and active. Too many kids are loosing their roots to nature and learning valuable skills. I never got to do any level of scouts as a child, but I probably would have tried harder if I knew more children involved with it.

[Jaybonaut]

You said it's a guess and you are denying what has been put forth by myself and others, so Im trying to figure out what you base that on? Specially given that majority who tend to speak out (there are plenty of examples) are religious and use their religion as a basis for speaking out. The majority who fight against same sex marriage also tend to be religious based organizations. I have yet to see a non religious organization who has fought against it. I don't see or have heard of any non religious bases reasons against same sex marriage. So when you say it's just a guess that it's mostly the religious side fighting against it, that's not really true.

So Im going to ask again, what is your basis for saying it's a guess? It's not a hard question to answer. Can you show anything to show that the majority that are against homosexuality and/or same sex marriage do not come from a basis of religion?

Ah, ok, yeah - I figured it wasn't based on any info/facts at all and it was just a guess, so I do want to take the time and thank you for summarizing that I was exactly correct. People that are not part of a group can also be religious, and obviously many people that have the same mindset may not be part of any group that has nothing to do with religion that also speak out.

[Calum Veteran]

As always as much as we differ your the voice of reason on the left. [. . .]

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.

Here is my problem with this. You cannot have a society that says its not ok to discriminate based on gender, sexual orientation etc, and then makes exceptions when it finds it suitable. Let me give an example. Hooters has a primary target audience or theme that they cater to hence why they only hire attractive women to be waiters. The boy scouts feels relatively the same way. They have a target audience and an image of 1950's wholesomeness if you will that they want to project. Whether you agree with their opinion or not, the real question is should people allow private organizations the right to discriminate and build a target audience/theme or should we arbitrarily ban discrimination. If you pick the latter, then we run into the problem of exceptions. Exceptions to discrimination are generally made because their is no current uproar about their plight. For example, nudists rights are marginalized because they have much more of society against public nudity than say homosexuals (who are also marginalized but at least have a large group backing their rights in comparison). We make exceptions as to whats ok to discriminate against and what isn't. If you decide that we should ban discrimination, it becomes entirely useless if we allow exceptions because if the majority rises against the minority you can guess where the next exceptions as to whats ok to discriminate against will go. I am tired, night shift got's me messed up so I will write more later, feel free to respond in the meantime.

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.

[mudslag]

Ah, ok, yeah - I figured it wasn't based on any info/facts at all and it was just a guess, so I do want to take the time and thank you for summarizing that I was exactly correct. People that are not part of a group can also be religious, and obviously many people that have the same mindset may not be part of any group that has nothing to do with religion that also speak out.

So you are saying you can't dispute what I said. I did say the majority to which still leaves open some to not fit into that majority pile but nothing you say attempts to even try to dispute the over all main point that the religious are the ones fighting over any other group or non religious group.

[Jaybonaut]

So you are saying you can't dispute what I said. I did say the majority to which still leaves open some to not fit into that majority pile but nothing you say attempts to even try to dispute the over all main point that the religious are the ones fighting over any other group or non religious group.

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

[seta-san]

No, I did not state it has that singular goal at all, and I'm not trying to weasel out of anything. I stated, "Protesting and informing others of an organisation's cruel beliefs is often a way to help ensure that organisation is less successful, and it can sometimes cause the organisation to change their beliefs (at least publicly)." Two goals are indicated there, not one (1. making the organisation less successful; 2. influencing the organisation to publicly change its beliefs). My wording in that statement was poor, so it's understandable that people would believe I wish to make bigoted organisations less successful. That is why I made my belief clear, when you mentioned it?you highlighted to me that my wording wasn't very clear, so I made it clear in my reply to you. Why didn't you accept my clarification? Why did you wrongly assume I was attempting to weasel out of something, when I told you I wasn't?

As I mention, two goals are unintentionally indicated in my statement, and the goal of encouraging the organisation to publicly change its beliefs is currently the sole reason for me taking the action of exposing them.

One must fight intolerance with intolerance. The decent people of the world cannot just sit by and watch others be oppressed for no decent reason. If that is hypocritical, so be it. But that would mean hypocrisy isn't always a bad quality. I don't deem it hypocritical, considering the side I'm fighting against were intolerant first and considering we're only being intolerant against them in order to stop people being oppressed.

If the Boy Scouts weren't against allowing gay and bisexual people to join, in the first place, no one would be being oppressed (they wouldn't be, because their views wouldn't be for such discrimination). The fact they are against that means they were intolerant first, and we must "play their game" in this case, if we are to see a change. There is no other way for change to happen now; we must "play their game."

As the great Ayaan Hirsi Ali once said, "Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice." She is correct.

Here's the thing though. Just like how you questioned if hypocrasy can't be a positive trait... us on the other side wonder if tolerance isn't a bad thing despite all of society telling us that it's always a good thing. Calls for tolerance has lead western society to bare more than we should have ever accepted, whether that be the gay issue, multiculturalism, amungst many other issues. You tolerate a crying baby. I see no reason to tolerate gays that demand equal treatment but at almost every turn do everything they can to behave as differently from the general popululation as possible.

[nominak]

more than we should have ever accepted, whether that be the gay issue, multiculturalism, amungst many other issues.

So what you basically just said is.. "White is right".

[mudslag]

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

Last I check much of those are still considered religious for the most part. Now here is the kicker, I never once claimed all religious people are homophobic or anti gay marriage. I even believe you can be anti same sex marriage and NOT be homophobic. For someone whining about generalizing, that doesn't seem to stop you from doing your part. Let me rephrase the can't to won't. You simply said it's a guess when it was said the majority of the antis are religious, Im simply asking what you base that on that it's just a guess. Can you provide any reason why it should not be thought of that way?

Here's the thing though. Just like how you questioned if hypocrasy can't be a positive trait... us on the other side wonder if tolerance isn't a bad thing despite all of society telling us that it's always a good thing. Calls for tolerance has lead western society to bare more than we should have ever accepted, whether that be the gay issue, multiculturalism, amungst many other issues. You tolerate a crying baby. I see no reason to tolerate gays that demand equal treatment but at almost every turn do everything they can to behave as differently from the general popululation as possible.

This is an example of generalization. What exactly seta-san is the behavior of the general population?

[nominak]

This is an example of generalization. What exactly seta-san is the behavior of the general population?

What's even worse is what he said before. Quite telling of who and what Seta-San is as a person... if you wanna call it that.

[Shiranui]

On the whole "is Gay the new Black" thing.

For those who consider the plight of homosexuals to be far removed from that of black people in the past, consider this:

There are many parts of the world where homosexuality is illegal and, in many cases, punishable by death. There are, currently, no countries where being black carries a death sentence.

Though the are some areas of the US where they will refuse to marry you in their church......

[nominak]

On the whole "is Gay the new Black" thing.

For those who consider the plight of homosexuals to be far removed from that of black people in the past, consider this:

There are many parts of the world where homosexuality is illegal and, in many cases, punishable by death. There are, currently, no countries where being black carries a death sentence.

Though the are some areas of the US where they will refuse to marry you in their church......

So what you're saying is, being gay is worse than being black at the worst of times?

[seta-san]

So what you basically just said is.. "White is right".

white is right in European nations. I make no such claim for America. We have a right to our own nations(nations as in people with a collective common origin, history, customs, and purpose each in their own indigenous lands). Multiculturalism and tolerance will soon see the death of western civilization. Low birthrates and high rates of divorce are symptoms of our decaying society. In europe the import of middle easterners and north africans have actually created no-go zones in major european cities. It's time to clean house, reclaim our own nations and countries and fix our broken society.

Last I check much of those are still considered religious for the most part. Now here is the kicker, I never once claimed all religious people are homophobic or anti gay marriage. I even believe you can be anti same sex marriage and NOT be homophobic. For someone whining about generalizing, that doesn't seem to stop you from doing your part. Let me rephrase the can't to won't. You simply said it's a guess when it was said the majority of the antis are religious, Im simply asking what you base that on that it's just a guess. Can you provide any reason why it should not be thought of that way?

This is an example of generalization. What exactly seta-san is the behavior of the general population?

not like this

[Shiranui]

white is right in European nations. I make no such claim for America. We have a right to our own nations(nations as in people with a collective common origin, history, customs, and purpose each in their own indigenous lands). Multiculturalism and tolerance will soon see the death of western civilization. Low birthrates and high rates of divorce are symptoms of our decaying society. In europe the import of middle easterners and north africans have actually created no-go zones in major european cities. It's time to clean house, reclaim our own nations and countries and fix our broken society.

not like this

And yet, you seem to be obsessed with 'yellow' people?