us Boy Scouts of America keeps gay ban

[SMELTN]

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

[Raa]

No boy needs to tell the Scouts.

"I'm not gay! Scouts honor!" :p

[Touchadowns]

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

It is pretty funny how these days "tolerance" means attacking everyone that doesn't agree with you.

[rfirth]

BSOA: Don't ask, don't tell!

Turion: Separate but equal!

Sure, they are entitled to discriminate however they like. However, discrimination reflects poorly on the organization. It tarnishes its reputation.

I support their right to make this decision, but they have lost my respect.

[+virtorio MVC]

It's a private organization with it's own rules for entry. Homosexuals need to start their organizations and customs instead of infringing on those of others who are not homosexual. Gay Scouts of America would be a good start. Domestic partnerships would as well.

And please describe how allowing gay members would change or affect the activities held by the BSA.

[DocM]

And please describe how allowing gay members would change or affect the activities held by the BSA.

Probably not much after an adjustment period for the organization, the boys and their parents, but in the end irellevant because it's their choice - not yours or mine. Get used to the idea.

[itylernallen]

Things like this make sad to be an American. The sheer amount of ignorance to any person who is not straight or white is mental.

[FloatingFatMan]

It's kinda strange that so many are fine with this, yet many of those self same people would likely be unsupportive of other kinds of discrimination, private company or not.

[Calum Veteran]

Homosexual organizations and activities need to not be given any govenment assistance to be fair.

[. . .]

It probably depends what kind of organisations you mean by that. We're only suggesting that these people should not be funded in any way by the government because they oppress people who don't deserve to be oppressed. They're prohibiting people from joining on the basis of their sexual orientation.

[. . .]

Homosexuals need to start their organizations and customs instead of infringing on those of others who are not homosexual. Gay Scouts of America would be a good start. Domestic partnerships would as well.

They're not intending to infringe upon anything, and allowing them to join would not result in them infringing on anything. All they'd like is to be included in the activities their peers enjoy, rather than be cast aside and discriminated against. What you're advocating is similar (if not the same as) the apartheid in South Africa?you wish to separate people according to their sexual orientation, rather than allow for full inclusion (something which would cause no harm).

Implicit in our right to free association is the opposite - a right not to associate with those you don't want to.

[. . .]

[. . .] but in the end irellevant because it's their choice - not yours or mine. Get used to the idea.

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

It is pretty funny how these days "tolerance" means attacking everyone that doesn't agree with you.

All we're doing is protesting their decision and holding them to account on their beliefs :) So I'm confused as to what you mean by "get used to the idea," or we're "attacking everyone that doesn't agree" (as if that's a bad thing to do). 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). We have as much right to protest and discuss their actions as they do to take those actions, so I don't understand why people say things like "get used to it," "you're just as intolerant as they are," "stop attacking them" etc. or why they even bring up their right to discriminate and be cruel. I would think we all know they have that right, but them having that right doesn't mean we should sit by and watch silently, instead of holding them to account and exposing them :)

[Jaybonaut]

I've always wondered about the hypocritical preaching of tolerance...

why? well...

Those screaming for more 'gay rights' tend to have zero tolerance or acceptance of those with homophobic behavior. Why is their homophobic ideals, beliefs, and upbringing intolerable when you are preaching about tolerance of your own beliefs?

etc.

[nekkidtruth]

I've always wondered about the hypocritical preaching of tolerance...

why? well...

Those screaming for more 'gay rights' tend to have zero tolerance or acceptance of those with homophobic behavior. Why is their homophobic ideals, beliefs, and upbringing intolerable when you are preaching about tolerance of your own beliefs?

etc.

Your logic is severely flawed.

[~Johnny]

Your logic is severely flawed.

I don't see it.

At any rate, just don't tell them your gay. You don't have to flaunt it, just get on with your scouting. It's a private group that can do what they want at the end of the day.

[Calum Veteran]

[. . .]

At any rate, just don't tell them your gay. You don't have to flaunt it, just get on with your scouting. It's a private group that can do what they want at the end of the day.

Just like with the American military's former Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, a problem occurs when people find out the person is gay or bisexual, even when the person in question hasn't made it obvious or told anyone. Do you not agree it would be terrible for someone, if they've progressed a certain amount in the Boy Scouts, only for that to be taken away from them merely because the group have somehow found out the person is gay or bisexual?

[mudslag]

I've always wondered about the hypocritical preaching of tolerance...

why? well...

Those screaming for more 'gay rights' tend to have zero tolerance or acceptance of those with homophobic behavior. Why is their homophobic ideals, beliefs, and upbringing intolerable when you are preaching about tolerance of your own beliefs?

etc.

At the same time those that whine about gays not being tolerant usually hide behind the vale of religion which ironically supposedly preaches tolerance. In all fairness, when you treat someone as a second class citizen, treat others as if they have some mental condition and purposely deny equal rights, you pretty much loose any level playing ground for whining about other people being intolerant to your own bigotry. And in all fairness again, it's the anti side that started this "you're not equal, your wrong according to our view" debacle. So why should the other side be tolerant of the anti sides intolerance?

FTR the BS is a private organization, I still believe it's their right to say who can or can't be in it. When it's a public organization, then that's a different story.

[Calum Veteran]

I've always wondered about the hypocritical preaching of tolerance...

why? well...

Those screaming for more 'gay rights' tend to have zero tolerance or acceptance of those with homophobic behavior. Why is their homophobic ideals, beliefs, and upbringing intolerable when you are preaching about tolerance of your own beliefs?

etc.

Merely debating and protesting against views isn't intolerance of those views, in my opinion. All beliefs should be subject to accountability and discussion, no matter which side those views are supportive of. Enacting legislation to oppress and take away freedoms (when those freedoms do not directly, unreasonably cause oppression) that equals in society enjoy is terrible intolerance, though. There is a huge difference in what the LGBT rights lobby are doing compared to the oppressive lobby. The oppressive lobby are attempting to take away freedoms or maintain legislation that denies people freedoms, without being able to provide good reason for doing so; this is dangerous, it can lead to harm, and it often negatively affects people's lives. The LGBT rights lobby, in contrast, is fighting to give people freedoms; this will cause no harm, and it will only negatively affect bigots who hold unreasonable views and who wish to continue oppressing people for no decent reason.

[Touchadowns]

Merely debating and protesting against views isn't intolerance of those views, in my opinion.

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.

[Nick H. Supervisor]

Relevant:

If I were part of the BSA then I would probably feel the same way.

[Calum Veteran]

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.

I don't wish for their businesses to be less successful; I meant, that occurrence is often a result of exposing them. I believe they should be exposed for the views they hold, but I cannot help if people choose not to use their business once I've told them of their views. I meant to express no remorse for that being the unchangeable result, because it serves them right (in my opinion), but I didn't mean to indicate that was my intention. I wish to hurt no one.

I have regard for why everyone holds the views they do, which is why I'm open-minded enough to change any view of mine once I've heard the opposing view (if the opposing view is reasonable and mine happens to be pointed out not to be; something that can happen but doesn't happen often, due to me being a reasonable person). But if those attempts at justification are unreasonable (e.g. when religion is used as an attempt at justification, especially when the people are attempting to oppress nonreligious people), I will continue to protest and hold them to account. That's only fair. Unreasonable actions and selfishness are liable to being held to account, but that does not mean those holding them to account have no regard for the viewpoints. Unless you're attempting to suggest that the only way we can have regard for viewpoints is if we accept them, don't protest them, and don't enact legislation against them.

[Calum Veteran]

Relevant:

<image snipped>

If I were part of the BSA then I would probably feel the same way.

A highly noble, selfless, and poignant letter. Thank you for sharing.

[mudslag]

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.

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?

[Touchadowns]

I don't wish for their businesses to be less successful; I meant, that occurrence is often a result of exposing them. I believe they should be exposed for the views they hold, but I cannot help if people choose not to use their business once I've told them of their views. I meant to express no remorse for that being the unchangeable result, because it serves them right (in my opinion), but I didn't mean to indicate that was my intention. I wish to hurt no one.

You're trying to weasel out of what you said and implied. You said you wanted to protest them and inform people, you then stated that protesting and informing has the singular goal of helping "ensure that organization is less successful"

You can't have it both ways, you can prattle on about being tolerant of people's beliefs, then work to punish people for having a belief you don't agree with. That's called hypocrisy.

[Calum Veteran]

You're trying to weasel out of what you said and implied. You said you wanted to protest them and inform people, you then stated that protesting and informing has the singular goal of helping "ensure that organization is less successful"

[. . .]

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.

[. . .]

You can't have it both ways, you can prattle on about being tolerant of people beliefs, then work to punish others for having a belief you don't agree with. That's called hypocrisy.

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.

[Touchadowns]

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?

So you want to attack them until they either go out of business or have the exact same beliefs you do? That doesn't seem illogical at all to you? Who are you to say what they should believe in? If an organization attacked a gay-owned or gay-friendly establishment with the same ferocity you attack the BSA you would call them bigoted, why is it you're not bigoted for attacking the BSA for their stance on gays? Are people not allowed to have beliefs contrary to your own?

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.

You can't really consider yourself a tolerant person if you completely fail to see all sides of an issue. You really fail the "tolerance" test if your first and only action against those you consider intolerant is more intolerance.

[mudslag]

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

[Calum Veteran]

So you want to attack them until they either go out of business or have the exact same beliefs you do? That doesn't seem illogical at all to you? Who are you to say what they should believe in? If an organization attacked a gay-owned or gay-friendly establishment with the same ferocity you attack the BSA you would call them bigoted, why is it you're not bigoted for attacking the BSA for their stance on gays? Are people not allowed to have beliefs contrary to your own?

No, I don't wish to do that. I've told you that I wish to hurt no one, and I don't wish to hurt anyone's business. But I do wish to see society stop oppressing innocent people, and if a business publicly endorses such oppression, I feel that everyone should know their position on that topic, so that we can incite more protest and discussion, because it is dangerous for the business to publicly endorse it. I don't wish to see the business become less successful, and I certainly don't want it to go out of business; if any of that happened, it would be a result I could not prevent or control, if I still wished to expose the company.

I would refer to them as bigoted, but I didn't state I am not bigoted. I don't like to use that label when it's a case of me fighting intolerance with intolerance, but the word 'bigot' describes someone who is intolerant, and if I am not tolerant of unjustified intolerance, one could perhaps class me as a bigot (I'm not yet sure). If that is the case, bigotry isn't always wrong or bad; e.g. in cases where intolerance is used to stop innocent people from being oppressed.

Of course people are allowed to have different beliefs to me. I am happy you asked that question, rather than assuming my opinion on that. Many people assume protesters and activists don't believe the people they're holding to account should have the right to form and broadcast that view. There is no logic behind such an assumption. We're protesting against their view, not their right to form or broadcast that view. I believe everyone should have a right to form and speak of their own views. But that doesn't mean I should accept those views; I should just accept their right to those views.

We all hold different beliefs. If a company holds different beliefs to me, then it's understandable that I'd wish them to hold the same beliefs as me, especially when those beliefs lead to oppression of the innocent. So, I'm not quite sure how to answer your question of "Who are you to say what they should believe in?" I am only another citizen who believes the company holds an immoral position; due to that belief of mine, I will protest and hold them to account. I'm not sure what you're getting at with that question. Are you trying to suggest I shouldn't protest and hold them to account on their beliefs? I believe everyone's beliefs should be liable to accountability, including my own.

[. . .]

You can't really consider yourself a tolerant person if you completely fail to see all sides of an issue. You really fail the "tolerance" test if your first and only action against those you consider intolerant is more intolerance.

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. 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.