us Boy Scouts of America keeps gay ban

[ANON86364]

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.

Not supporting the policy is great and healthy. Not supporting the freedom to make such a policy is not. As I understand, you agree with the former then?

[DocM]

When I started school I was told 'you can't make people like or accept you.' The same is true here - and trying to do so will probably alienate even more people that are on the fence. A generational attitude change often takes time, enough to let new board members to take over.

[Calum Veteran]

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.

[. . .]

Again, my wording was not clear; I apologise for that. I meant, unlike them, I am not denying them anything, and I am also not forcing them into anything; thus, I am not oppressing them. Them being a private organisation does not mean they are unable to oppress. They are denying people the freedom to join their organisation merely because those people are gay and bisexual, for no just reason. They are oppressing these people.

[. . .]

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.

They do not have a reasonable justification, in my opinion; thus, my point still stands. I am of course talking about my opinion?my decision to protest and hold them to account is fully based on my opinion. But there is nothing wrong with me doing so. If they're allowed to broadcast their opinion, I should be allowed to broadcast mine, right?

[. . .]

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?

No, I know it wouldn't harm anyone because I've used my brain. It isn't hard to understand that it wouldn't harm anyone. If you believe it would harm people, please let me know how, and I will explain to you how you're wrong. I am completely open-minded about everything?I have come to the belief that it wouldn't harm anyone through realisation, after using my brain and considering facts. I haven't just come to that belief to fit any kind of blind agenda. I have no motivation to twist any truths?if it would cause harm, I would be against it. I have stated that I don't care about their beliefs after I came to the conclusion it wouldn't cause harm and after I realised their beliefs are unjustifiable.

Why should I just accept that? Why should we accept oppression? Should women have accepted that they couldn't vote, because allowing them to vote didn't jive with the country's beliefs at the time? Should black people have accepted all of the discrimination against them, because being decent people didn't jive with the bigots at the time?

[. . .]

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".

I am not attempting to force my beliefs on others, in this case. What do you believe I'm doing to try to force my beliefs on others? Protesting and debating is not forcing beliefs onto others.

[Calum Veteran]

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.

Are you sure that's the reason? Is that the official reason they've provided? They've stated before that they believe same-sex attraction is wrong, and they're dangerously teaching that to the children, according to reports.

Still, they call themselves the "Boy Scouts" stating they accept boys. But they're not accepting some boys. That's unfair, no matter their reasons. At least when it comes to girls, it's none of them that they're accepting, for reasons that aren't dangerous.

EDIT: Further, I don't even believe that's a valid reason. The UK has always allowed gay and bisexual Cub Scouts and Scouts to join, and that hasn't caused any problems I'm aware of.

[Calum Veteran]

Not supporting the policy is great and healthy. Not supporting the freedom to make such a policy is not. As I understand, you agree with the former then?

So far, yes. I support their freedom and right to make and enforce this policy; I just believe the policy is unfair, so I believe it is fine to protest and debate against it.

[Calum Veteran]

When I started school I was told 'you can't make people like or accept you.' The same is true here - and trying to do so will probably alienate even more people that are on the fence. A generational attitude change often takes time, enough to let new board members to take over.

Often, nothing one will say will influence people to change their minds. But I believe debate and protest on the matter is healthy :) If it doesn't convince the board, it can often convince members of the public to change their stance, and it at least makes light of the issue :)

[FloatingFatMan]

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.

Why is it that people seem to presume that gay = sex mad? 99.9% of gay people, just like heterosexual people, don't go flaunting their sexuality in other people's faces. Being gay would have zero affect on the BSA's general activities.

[Calum Veteran]

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

Their policy of having to be heterosexual is mandatory. One cannot say "I am gay and I'd like to join the Boy Scouts." But that isn't what oppression means. By the definitions stated here (especially number 1), what the BSA are doing is oppressing.

[articuno1au]

Are you sure that's the reason? Is that the official reason they've provided? They've stated before that they believe same-sex attraction is wrong, and they're dangerously teaching that to the children, according to reports.

Still, they call themselves the "Boy Scouts" stating they accept boys. But they're not accepting some boys. That's unfair, no matter their reasons. At least when it comes to girls, it's none of them that they're accepting, for reasons that aren't dangerous.

EDIT: Further, I don't even believe that's a valid reason. The UK has always allowed gay and bisexual Cub Scouts and Scouts to join, and that hasn't caused any problems I'm aware of.

Yes, but it comes back to nature versus nurture.

If homosexuality is a natural thing (in the sense "you're born gay") then the kids interacting won't matter at all.

If it's a nurture thing, then the mixing of the kids could lead some kids to confusion or homosexuality. The issue is that it's the parent's choice what they expose their children to, and surely as a result it's up to the parents in the organisation to decide.

It's poisoning the well as it were.

Honestly, I don't know if there is a right answer on this one. It's not a simple right or wrong question.

Off topic: Nice quad post.

Why is it that people seem to presume that gay = sex mad? 99.9% of gay people, just like heterosexual people, don't go flaunting their sexuality in other people's faces. Being gay would have zero affect on the BSA's general activities.

That's not even close to what I said. I don't presume that gay people are sex mad anymore than straight people are. The issue is that people's sexuality inevitably leaks into social circumstances.

There's as good a chance as any that a gay boy will find a boy he finds attractive in a group of males he spends significant time with (in the same way as girls and boys).

The issue is, that when that eventually happens, are we going to tell the kid not to express that he likes the boy because the boy doesn't reciprocate? Society is full of fan worship for "boy meets girl, falls in unrequited love and presses until he wins her over". It's that kind of issue that means we shouldn't just treat this as a crap shoot.

For future reference, don't insinuate based on inference. In situations like this, wherein the subject matter is an issue of some contention, your misguided inference could lead to all kinds of unexpected consequence.

[Xilo]

Their policy of having to be heterosexual is mandatory. One cannot say "I am gay and I'd like to join the Boy Scouts." But that isn't what oppression means. By the definitions stated here (especially number 1), what the BSA are doing is oppressing.

The only part of the definition that possibly matches is being unjust. They are only disallowing membership and not harming them in any way. However, the only authority and power the BSA has is within themselves and since they are private membership is completely non-mandatory. Sure, gay people already in the BSA might feel it's an unjust ruling. However, this rule has been there throughout BSA's history and those people did optionally join them when their rules are freely available. There's many organizations that exist that restrict their membership to a certain group of people.

Again, if you argue for one form but against another, you're just a hypocritical bigot and are no better than the people that decided to uphold this ruling.

[Calum Veteran]

Yes, but it comes back to nature versus nurture.

If homosexuality is a natural thing (in the sense "you're born gay") then the kids interacting won't matter at all.

If it's a nurture thing, then the mixing of the kids could lead some kids to confusion or homosexuality. The issue is that it's the parent's choice what they expose their children to, and surely as a result it's up to the parents in the organisation to decide.

[. . .]

That point is too sympathetic to unjustifiably intolerant views, and it opens up all sorts of questions and possibilities. What if a boy's parents didn't want him mixing with heterosexual children for the same reason?him possibly becoming confused about his presently understood homosexuality? It works both ways, and as you know, some closeted people join the Boy Scouts, so that could be an issue. Obviously, I wouldn't agree with such parents, just like I don't agree with the parents in your example. It is unacceptable to allow parents to ensure their child does not mix with gay and bisexual children, for those reasons. I find your suggestion shocking. If a child is prone to realising they're gay or bisexual after interacting with a gay or bisexual person, that could happen at any point in their life. Their bigoted parents won't be there to stop them all the time.

[Calum Veteran]

The only part of the definition that possibly matches is being unjust. They are only disallowing membership and not harming them in any way. However, the only authority and power the BSA has is within themselves and since they are private membership is completely non-mandatory. Sure, gay people already in the BSA might feel it's an unjust ruling. However, this rule has been there throughout BSA's history and those people did optionally join them when their rules are freely available. There's many organizations that exist that restrict their membership to a certain group of people.

[. . .]

I agree that they have every right to enforce this policy. But I deem the policy unfair, so all I am currently doing is protesting against it, debating against it, and holding them to account on their beliefs :)

[. . .]

Again, if you argue for one form but against another, you're just a hypocritical bigot and are no better than people that decided to uphold this ruling.

I am only arguing against this policy. I am not arguing for any discriminatory policies.

[Xilo]

I am only arguing against this policy. I am not arguing for any discriminatory policies.

So why only this policy? Why not protest for the MANY organizations that are for select groups of people?

Oh I know, it's only because this is a gay issue which is why you're protesting.

That point is too sympathetic to unjustifiably intolerant views, and it opens up all sorts of questions and possibilities.

Sorry but you're the one with the most unjustifiably intolerant views in this thread.

[AltecXP]

Ah so this is why i have seen scouts online dropping out and retuning badges.

[Touchadowns]

Again, my wording was not clear; I apologise for that. I meant, unlike them, I am not denying them anything, and I am also not forcing them into anything; thus, I am not oppressing them. Them being a private organisation does not mean they are unable to oppress. They are denying people the freedom to join their organisation merely because those people are gay and bisexual, for no just reason. They are oppressing these people.

So denying something, no matter what, is oppression? Is stopping felons from buying handguns oppressing them? How about stopping pedophiles from living near schools, is that oppression to you? It seems like you twist and contort your meanings as soon as they are exposed as hypocritical under the guise of some kind of language barrier. I understand exactly what you're saying, the problem is you change it after the slightest bit of scrutiny.

They do not have a reasonable justification, in my opinion; thus, my point still stands. I am of course talking about my opinion?my decision to protest and hold them to account is fully based on my opinion. But there is nothing wrong with me doing so. If they're allowed to broadcast their opinion, I should be allowed to broadcast mine, right?

Oh you definitely have every right to say your opinion, but don't act like your opinion is the only right one - while claiming how open minded you are - and then denouncing all other opinions that don't line up perfectly with yours.

No, I know it wouldn't harm anyone because I've used my brain. It isn't hard to understand that it wouldn't harm anyone. If you believe it would harm people, please let me know how, and I will explain to you how you're wrong. I am completely open-minded about everything?I have come to the belief that it wouldn't harm anyone through realisation, after using my brain and considering facts. I haven't just come to that belief to fit any kind of blind agenda. I have no motivation to twist any truths?if it would cause harm, I would be against it. I have stated that I don't care about their beliefs after I came to the conclusion it wouldn't cause harm and after I realised their beliefs are unjustifiable.

Why should I just accept that? Why should we accept oppression? Should women have accepted that they couldn't vote, because allowing them to vote didn't jive with the country's beliefs at the time? Should black people have accepted all of the discrimination against them, because being decent people didn't jive with the bigots at the time?

I am not attempting to force my beliefs on others, in this case. What do you believe I'm doing to try to force my beliefs on others? Protesting and debating is not forcing beliefs onto others.

Basically, what I got out of that is you, someone presumably not associated with the BSA at all, has determined that a policy change wouldn't harm their beliefs, because you've immediately discounted their beliefs as wrong and yours as right. How amazingly open minded of you.

Why is it that people seem to presume that gay = sex mad? 99.9% of gay people, just like heterosexual people, don't go flaunting their sexuality in other people's faces. Being gay would have zero affect on the BSA's general activities.

It probably has to do with Gay pride parades where being sexually grating and flamboyant to the sole purpose of unnerving others is almost a requirement. Straight people don't put on parades where we dry hump each other down a street for miles so I don't see why gay people feel they need to.

[Calum Veteran]

So why only this policy? Why not protest for the MANY organizations that are for select groups of people?

Oh I know, it's only because this is a gay issue which is why you're protesting.

No, it's because this is the only case I'm aware of whereby an organisation is purposely oppressing people for unjustifiable reasons. Why should I have to be fighting against other cases? I am referring to this case, and my apathy regarding learning about other organisations that do this shouldn't take anything away from my stance on this. I can't fight for every unjust issue in this world?no one has the time to do that?but I can fight for many of them.

[. . .]

Sorry but you're the one with the most unjustifiably intolerant views in this thread.

I completely disagree. I'm for allowing no oppression to occur; you're for allowing many gay and bisexual people to suffer oppression. Yet you believe I have the most unjustifiably intolerant views in this thread? Interesting.

[Colin McGregor]

Guaranteed there is gay children in the boy scouts. They just don't say anything. The fact people think gay is noticable is just laughable. Only a very small minority of gay males / females flaunt

[theyarecomingforyou]

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.

For what it's worth, I'm opposed to such gender discrimination. It only serves to reinforce gender stereotypes. Attempting to protect a child's innocence is highly manipulative and designed to shield them from political views and ideologies that differ to those of the parents, rather than allowing them to form opinions on their own. Children should be exposed to different genders, races and sexualities from an early age, not shielded to perpetuate the bigotry of their parents and society at large.

[Calum Veteran]

So denying something, no matter what, is oppression? Is stopping felons from buying handguns oppressing them? How about stopping pedophiles from living near schools, is that oppression to you? It seems like you twist and contort your meanings as soon as they are exposed as hypocritical under the guise of some kind of language barrier. I understand exactly what you're saying, the problem is you change it after the slightest bit of scrutiny.

No. As the Dictionary.com link states, in the first definition, oppression occurs when the reasons for the action are unjust. I deem none of your examples unjust, so that isn't oppression. I deem the Boy Scouts's policy unjust; thus, that is oppression.

I have not done any of that. Please do not make such terrible accusations. I always admit when I am proven wrong, and I have not done any of that. I now ask you to provide examples to attempt to back up your accusations, and I will prove you wrong. Thank you.

[. . .]

Oh you definitely have every right to say your opinion, but don't act like your opinion is the only right one - while claiming how open minded you are - and then denouncing all other opinions that don't line up perfectly with yours.

That's a ridiculous statement. I wouldn't hold this opinion if I didn't deem it right. I am open-minded, willing to change my opinion if someone proves me wrong. But no one has proven me wrong about this, yet, so I continue to believe my opinion on this is correct. Protest is all about denouncing other opinions one deems wrong. Are you suggesting I shouldn't protest and/or debate views? Denouncing is condemning. I believe it is perfectly fine for me to condemn views I believe are wrong. Do you think I shouldn't?

I'm confused as to why we're having this debate. You seem to be suggesting I am doing something wrong. Are you? If so, considering what I've mentioned above, what do you believe I am doing wrong? All I am doing here is stating that I believe the Boy Scouts's policy is unfair and stating why I believe it's unfair. I'm confused as to what you believe I should stop doing, if anything (other than what you've stated up there, which I've refuted).

[. . .]

Basically, what I got out of that is you, someone presumably not associated with the BSA at all, has determined that a policy change wouldn't harm their beliefs, because you've immediately discounted their beliefs as wrong and yours as right. How amazingly open minded of you.

[. . .]

One can form an opinion but still be open-minded in regard to that possibly changing. I have formed my opinion using reason and logic, and I constantly invite people to prove that opinion wrong. Yet you're absurdly suggesting I am not open-minded. I haven't "immediately" discounted their beliefs; I have discounted their beliefs after using reason and logic to determine whether their beliefs are just. I asked you if you can explain to me how you believe them allowing gay and bisexual people could cause harm, as I have determined that it won't. I notice that you didn't offer any suggestions. I've used reason and logic to determine it won't cause harm, and I'm inviting you to publicly prove me wrong. Yet you still suggest I'm not open-minded. Do you not see how ridiculous that is?

[articuno1au]

That point is too sympathetic to unjustifiably intolerant views, and it opens up all sorts of questions and possibilities. What if a boy's parents didn't want him mixing with heterosexual children for the same reason?him possibly becoming confused about his presently understood homosexuality? It works both ways, and as you know, some closeted people join the Boy Scouts, so that could be an issue. Obviously, I wouldn't agree with such parents, just like I don't agree with the parents in your example. It is unacceptable to allow parents to ensure their child does not mix with gay and bisexual children, for those reasons. I find your suggestion shocking. If a child is prone to realising they're gay or bisexual after interacting with a gay or bisexual person, that could happen at any point in their life. Their bigoted parents won't be there to stop them all the time.

Then tell me Calum: Who's decision is it?

The theory of parental care is that the parents guide the decision of children until they are intelligent enough to make their own decisions. The line at which we consider them suitable to make decisions is clearly defined: Adulthood.

If the child decides the are gay, fair enough. The issue is the parents have the right to decide what they are exposed to UNTIL adult hood. They can guide these decisions but not make them for the child.

It doesn't mean that the parent is right, it just means that society says it's the parents choice for now.

The argument then becomes: How can you justify exposing a person who is, by law and consideration; weak minded, to the external stimuli of homosexuality; an issue which much brighter and stronger minded adults have yet to reach a consensus on (such as: gay marriage, equality, whether it's natural etc etc).

I'm not suggesting that the BSA are right, merely that they have "the given right" to chose.

---

For the record, the above is not reflective of my point of view. On some parts of it I am very much playing the devil's advocate, on others not so much. I just want to understand how certain people can take such a strong stance on their position and not consider themselves hypocritical (and no, I am not calling Calum a hypocrite, he just happens to be the person I trust most in this thread not to act like a dick >.>)

---

For what it's worth, I'm opposed to such gender discrimination. It only serves to reinforce gender stereotypes. Attempting to protect a child's innocence is highly manipulative and designed to shield them from political views and ideologies that differ to those of the parents, rather than allowing them to form opinions on their own. Children should be exposed to different genders, races and sexualities from an early age, not shielded to perpetuate the bigotry of their parents and society at large.

This is one facet of my point of view on this issue. It's also true of religion IMO.

Everything a parent does is manipulative btw. You can't avoid it, the question is simply how manipulative do we consider to be ok >.<

[DocM]

Again, my wording was not clear; I apologise for that. I meant, unlike them, I am not denying them anything, and I am also not forcing them into anything; thus, I am not oppressing them. Them being a private organisation does not mean they are unable to oppress. They are denying people the freedom to join their organisation merely because those people are gay and bisexual, for no just reason. They are oppressing these people.

>

Devil's Advocate hat on -

The on-point rebuttal would be that same-sex private schools routinely make a gender specific exclusion, so why shouldn't the BSA have the same right to exclude 'the third gender' if they see fit? Other examples would be male oriented lodges that, while having female auxilliaries for wives, daughters & girlfriends, only accept male members.

Remember that the US Constitutions Free Association clause implicitly also includes the right to disassociation.

[Touchadowns]

I've used reason and logic to determine it won't cause harm, and I'm inviting you to publicly prove me wrong. Yet you still suggest I'm not open-minded. Do you not see how ridiculous that is?

No you haven't, like most gay rights advocates you've used nothing but emotion. You waive around a patently objective term like what is "unjust" - while completely ignoring that forcing an organization to follow beliefs that go against their values is also "unjust". You claim you don't want to "force" them to change, you just want to coerce them through protests and public shaming into changing their policy, as if that's different or something. You throw around terms meant to invoke an emotional response - like "oppression" - even after it's shown that no one is forced to join the Boy Scouts, ergo no one is being oppressed. Your entire argument is based on emotion.

[Calum Veteran]

Then tell me Calum: Who's decision is it?

The theory of parental care is that the parents guide the decision of children until they are intelligent enough to make their own decisions. The line at which we consider them suitable to make decisions is clearly defined: Adulthood.

If the child decides the are gay, fair enough. The issue is the parents have the right to decide what they are exposed to UNTIL adult hood. They can guide these decisions but not make them for the child.

It doesn't mean that the parent is right, it just means that society says it's the parents choice for now.

The argument then becomes: How can you justify exposing a person who is, by law and consideration; weak minded, to the external stimuli of homosexuality; an issue which much brighter and stronger minded adults have yet to reach a consensus on (such as: gay marriage, equality, whether it's natural etc etc).

I'm not suggesting that the BSA are right, merely that they have "the given right" to chose.

[. . .]

I appreciate you bringing this issue up, whether you subscribe to the opinion or not :)

I don't believe it's anyone's decision to make. I don't believe it should be a decision to make, because it being a decision helps contribute to the oppression. We don't allow state-funded schools to not accept people on the basis of their sexual orientation, and there are many other places a parent would not be able to make this decision, because it would be impractical, and it would probably lead to worse oppression than what the Boy Scouts of America are currently involved with. Of course, we allow private schools and private organisations to provide parents with this decision, and I'm not currently stating that we shouldn't; I'm just stating that I believe it is wrong of them to do so, and I'm providing real-world examples of when parents are not provided this decision, to make my case.

If parents should be provided with that decision, shouldn't the Boy Scouts of America also provide them with the decision of not wanting their child to mix with heterosexuals, over fear that their child may end up being heterosexual?

Parents cannot control everything their child is exposed to, so why should oppression of innocent people continue just so parents can be provided with one extra situation of control, out of the many they cannot control? That is my main point against this :)

[. . .]

Everything a parent does is manipulative btw. You can't avoid it, the question is simply how manipulative do we consider to be ok >.<

I agree :)

Devil's Advocate hat on -

The on-point rebuttal would be that same-sex private schools routinely make a gender specific exclusion, so why shouldn't the BSA have the same right to exclude 'the third gender' if they see fit? Other examples would be male oriented lodges that, while having female auxilliaries for wives, daughters & girlfriends, only accept male members.

Remember that the US Constitutions Free Association clause implicitly also includes the right to disassociation.

On the surface, I deem such gender-based segregation wrong. But I would have to look into the details and reasons before I can confirm my belief regarding that. I don't have time for that at the moment, and I don't see why some people are suggesting I must take a stance regarding that different issue in order for my views on this issue to hold weight (I'm not suggesting that you're saying that, but some people are).

No you haven't, like most gay rights advocates you've used nothing but emotion. You waive around a patently objective term like what is "unjust" - while completely ignoring that forcing an organization to follow beliefs that go against their values is also "unjust". You claim you don't want to "force" them to change, you just want to coerce them through protests and public shaming into changing their policy, as if that's different or something. You throw around terms meant to invoke an emotional response - like "oppression" - even after it's shown that no one is forced to join the Boy Scouts, ergo no one is being oppressed. Your entire argument is based on emotion.

There is nothing wrong with using emotion in an argument, if one does not allow that emotion to cloud their judgement or open-mindedness. I am not doing that. I am very emotive regarding this issue, but I am still using reason and I am still open-minded enough to change my beliefs if someone proves any of them wrong. What is amusing about that statement of yours is that you're clearly also emotionally involved with your opposition to my views.

You believe what is unjust is objective, whereas I believe it is subjective. Not only that, but you're regularly misinterpreting my beliefs, even when I have made them clear. I've informed you once or twice already that I am not attempting to force them to go against their beliefs. I am only trying to convince them that they are wrong. I've asked you nicely before, and I will ask you nicely again: Please stop lying about what I have said and misrepresenting my views. I am not attempting to force anyone into anything. As I have mentioned, there is nothing wrong with "public shaming," as you put it. Everyone's views should be liable to being held to account. Are you trying to suggest that we shouldn't inform others of a company's views? Why do you believe it is wrong to "publicly shame" a company for promoting a view? Surely they wouldn't be shamed if most people agreed with their view? They don't have to change their policy, and I will not be forcing them to by telling the public of their views. The choice is entirely up to them. You cannot reasonably state that I am forcing them to change it by merely protesting and telling people of their views.

Again, you haven't read what oppression means, even though I pointed it out to you. I will now do so again, quoting the definition here and explaining how the Boy Scouts of America are oppressing gay and bisexual people:

op?press

? ?[uh-pres]

verb (used with object)

1. to burden with cruel or unjust impositions or restraints; subject to a burdensome or harsh exercise of authority or power:

a people oppressed by totalitarianism.

The Boy Scouts of America are burdening gay and bisexual people with this cruel and unjust imposition that states they are not allowed to join. They are harshly exercising their authority and power when doing so.

Would you like to know what any other of the above words mean before you once again misrepresent my viewpoint? :)

Please stop misrepresenting my viewpoints.

[briangw]

Does anyone even put their kids in boy scouts any more? It always struck me as a such a 1950s thing.

I was in and am now an Asst. Cubmaster with my two boys in. Always loved camping, competition and summer camps

[Xilo]

... I am not attempting to force them to go against their beliefs. I am only trying to convince them that they are wrong.

This is no better than the religious people that go around trying to force their beliefs onto others. Trying to convince people they are wrong and you are right is in fact forcing your beliefs onto other people.