us Boy Scouts of America keeps gay ban

[articuno1au]

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 is what leads 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 :)

You can't suggest that it should be accepted blindly and without consideration. That's as bad as the things you are railing against.

It must be a decision. At some point people will decide it's so obvious as to no longer require discussion, but that is in and of itself a decision as well.

We don't allow schools to discriminate against sexuality as it's a mandated function of the state. We do however discriminate against genders all of the time (girls gyms etc), and this is no different. More to the point, the club has a right to decide what its members ascribe to. If you don't ascribe to their views then you shouldn't join and the club should have the right to stop you joining. Imagine a KKK member saying you can't discriminate against me for being white and joining a black club. We allow it in schooling for things like Jewish schools and Islamic schools. This is no different.

You should stop using oppression. There is no oppression in this. The BSA is not forcing anything on gay kids, it's not campaigning against them, it's merely defining the boundaries on which it operates. You are using words that you know aren't right, but you also know people can't argue against (see below with relation to this also). It's similar to the "Internet filters block kiddy porn therefore if you are against internet filters you are pro-kiddy porn" misnomer, and equally offensive to the people you use it against.

The issue with that argument is that heterosexuality is still considered the norm by society (and scientifically is the norm (meaning the majority of people)). You cannot discriminate against the majority. This is why calling a white man a cracker isn't a racial slur. It's also why there are no "white" racial slurs.

The reason the parents should have this option is because it's their club. They make up the majority. If they called a vote at an AGM, then it would still pass this way. That's the basis of the decision.

<snipped out reply to off-topic post?I will take this to a private conversation>

Edited July 24, 2012 by Calum

[Touchadowns]

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.

There you go again. You claim to be Mr. Logical Brains and Rationality one post, then admit your opinion is based on emotion. What "reason" are you using? It seems to me your argument is based solely on what you personally think is "right". Did you study the BSA history, the personal beliefs of it's owners? Did you look into what parents think? I'm pretty sure you did none of that, you came into this with a pre-conceived emotional bias - that BSA is wrong - and your "logical" conclusion perfectly matched your emotional bias. There is nothing wrong with forming opinions and beliefs based on emotion, but don't think we're so stupid to believe your level of bigotry and hatred stems from a thoughtful internal debate or an exhaustive investigation into the facts.

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.

That's one way to put it. Another would be that you are trying to coerce them - through protests and shaming - to change their policy. I don't know how they define things in the UK, but that sounds like you're trying to force them into taking a position that would satisfy your beliefs, not theirs.

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.

The Girl Scouts of America are burdening males 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.

The All Girl boarding schools are burdening males 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.

The All Male boarding schools are burdening females 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.

Then start presenting them in a consistent manner.

[FloatingFatMan]

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).

Edit: Clarification. This is a general "huh?" comment rather than aimed directly at the quoted poster.

How on Earth is allowing gay people into the scouts "exposing kids to homosexuality"? These kids aren't mincing around in pink flowers fondling their peers and saying "Chase me" in an effeminate voice. They're boys doing EXACTLY the same as all the other boys. Working on their badges, going on trails, learning valuable skills. There's absolutely NO need at all for sexuality to ever be mentioned in the scouts, period.

[FloatingFatMan]

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.

I actually don't have too much of a problem with the BSA's decision. I think it's wrong, but at the end of the day, it IS up to them. For me, the problem is that they get a HELL of a lot of public money, and get virtually free access to government facilities (camps and such). This means the government is giving preferential treatment to a private body that publicly flaunts discrimination. I'm pretty sure they're not actually allowed to do that.

I'm kinda surprised how much this annoys me, a non-American, yet so many Americans seem totally fine with it.

[Jaybonaut]

Your logic is severely flawed.

It's a question, it isn't a statement. Please explain.

[DocM]

How on Earth is allowing gay people into the scouts "exposing kids to homosexuality"? These kids aren't mincing around in pink flowers fondling their peers and saying "Chase me" in an effeminate voice. They're boys doing EXACTLY the same as all the other boys. Working on their badges, going on trails, learning valuable skills. There's absolutely NO need at all for sexuality to ever be mentioned in the scouts, period.

Scouting goes up to age 18, so saying boys in that range won't talk about sexuality is incredibly naieve.

[FloatingFatMan]

Scouting goes up to age 18, so saying boys in that range won't talk about sexuality is incredibly naieve.

Discussions amongst themselves have little to do with actual scouting. And you can bet they get plenty of exposure to homosexual culture in the real world, all without them "catching the gay".

Mind you, considering the abysmal state of sex education in many US states, many of them probably think you CAN "catch the gay"...

[Jaybonaut]

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?

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

[articuno1au]

How on Earth is allowing gay people into the scouts "exposing kids to homosexuality"? These kids aren't mincing around in pink flowers fondling their peers and saying "Chase me" in an effeminate voice. They're boys doing EXACTLY the same as all the other boys. Working on their badges, going on trails, learning valuable skills. There's absolutely NO need at all for sexuality to ever be mentioned in the scouts, period.

Read the entire response. I answered it in there. Don't just pick out the parts that suit you and call me out on them.

Sexuality innevitably gets dragged into it. Some asshat parent will send them with a "Gay and Proud" shirt or they'll admit to a boy that they like them (in the same way that boys will talk about girls) or whatever it may be.

It will happen. It always happens. There's no need for sexuality to arise at work, and yet guys and girls all **** workmates all the time. Hell, the "It gets better" campaign even drags work place into it.

Feel free to read and think. I know you aren't an idiot, I've seen you post constructive and insightful things. Do me the courtesy of not insinuating that I'm some kind of blathering idiot by selectively quoting my comments.

[Jaybonaut]

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.

Thing is, this can be applied to so many things that have nothing to do with the topic. Some people use the same arguments for legalizing marijuana and fewer restrictions on copyright, etc.

[FloatingFatMan]

Feel free to read and think. I know you aren't an idiot, I've seen you post constructive and insightful things. Do me the courtesy of not insinuating that I'm some kind of blathering idiot by selectively quoting my comments.

Sorry, it was more of a general comment rather than something aimed directly at you. My bad for not making that clear. I'll see if it'll let me edit...

[articuno1au]

Fair enough.

Thanks for the response and apology.

[Jaybonaut]

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

[FloatingFatMan]

Read the entire response. I answered it in there. Don't just pick out the parts that suit you and call me out on them.

Sexuality innevitably gets dragged into it. Some asshat parent will send them with a "Gay and Proud" shirt or they'll admit to a boy that they like them (in the same way that boys will talk about girls) or whatever it may be.

It will happen. It always happens. There's no need for sexuality to arise at work, and yet guys and girls all **** workmates all the time. Hell, the "It gets better" campaign even drags work place into it.

Feel free to read and think. I know you aren't an idiot, I've seen you post constructive and insightful things. Do me the courtesy of not insinuating that I'm some kind of blathering idiot by selectively quoting my comments.

Right, I'll try to answer properly now I've taken care of the edit. ;)

Yes, such things will happen, but again, I really don't see the issue. In the UK, there are homosexual kids in the scouts, the Boys Brigade, Army cadets, etc etc etc. There's no exclusion rule and there are no general problems (yes, random bullying can and does happen, but that's part of life).

Where you do get problems is when they start to actively teach that homosexuality is wrong, and from what I've read, this IS something that the BSA do for some reason. Why? Why do they feel a need to do something that is absolutely NOT in their remit to do? They're not there to teach sex education, so why do they feel the need to actively try to suppress something that is as natural as water in a pond?

Purely IMO of course, but I think that the BSA have lost their way; that numbers are down so they're actually making this an issue deliberately to gain the interest of similarly minded people. They know that homosexuality is very much a minority thing, so they hope to capitalise on often religion based bigotry they know to be very prevalent, especially in certain regions. I say this is a mistake and will eventually have a huge negative effect on the entire organisation.

[articuno1au]

Right, I'll try to answer properly now I've taken care of the edit. ;)

Yes, such things will happen, but again, I really don't see the issue. In the UK, there are homosexual kids in the scouts, the Boys Brigade, Army cadets, etc etc etc. There's no exclusion rule and there are no general problems (yes, random bullying can and does happen, but that's part of life).

Where you do get problems is when they start to actively teach that homosexuality is wrong, and from what I've read, this IS something that the BSA do for some reason. Why? Why do they feel a need to do something that is absolutely NOT in their remit to do? They're not there to teach sex education, so why do they feel the need to actively try to suppress something that is as natural as water in a pond?

Purely IMO of course, but I think that the BSA have lost their way; that numbers are down so they're actually making this an issue deliberately to gain the interest of similarly minded people. They know that homosexuality is very much a minority thing, so they hope to capitalise on often religion based bigotry they know to be very prevalent, especially in certain regions. I say this is a mistake and will eventually have a huge negative effect on the entire organisation.

Showing that the UK is far more forward thinking and reasonable than the US :p

We already knew that though..

I think it's more that their existing members are anti-gay. Thus they've maintained the point of view. I think, given the choice, the would prefer the issue to just disappear.

My point of view is that for generations everyone KNEW the world was flat.. Sometimes it just takes time for people to pull their heads out of their asses. /shrug

Thanks for the reasoned reply. I'm going to watch The Newsroom >.<

[Guest nicconics]

They are, and we're entitled to hold them to account and protest their terrible, indecent decisions :)

Concerns of possible bullying shouldn't halt progress. Many people use the same argument against allowing same-sex couples to adopt. Yes, there would likely be some bullying in the short-term, but as you agreed, in the long-term, bullying wouldn't be a problem. As more people everywhere?not just in the Boy Scouts?come to realise there is nothing wrong with same-sex attraction, less bullying and more tolerance will occur. The best way for society to realise that reality is for people to stop being fine with such discrimination and accept that some people will be bullied, unfortunately.

A terrible fact about our world is that many people are bullied, for many different reasons. People are bullied for wearing glasses, so should all opticians stop prescribing children glasses? Children are bullied for being overweight, so should all fast food restaurants stop serving unhealthy food to children? Children are bullied for having ginger hair, so should all schools not accept these children, in order to protect them from bullies? Do you see my point? :) My last example is completely analogous to your suggestion that the Boy Scouts shouldn't accept gay children because it's about an institution not accepting children who cannot change who they are, in order to protect them from possibly being bullied.

Terrible. As a decent person, I do not applaud your view or this decision.

More separation is a dreadful idea. Bigots and intolerant people already tried this by creating the "separate but equal" civil unions instead of allowing same-sex couples to marry. We should not push for more separation; we should fight for full inclusion of gay and bisexual people everywhere in society.

In regard to your last sentence, please see my reply to Hum above.

In regard to you asking "who cares?" The decent people of the world care; most of the people suffering from this oppression care; I care :) It seems odd that you would ask who cares. Have you ever been oppressed? Not only does this discriminate, it influences the many bigots that exist to believe that their opinion on same-sex attraction is fine and correct, even though it isn't. The reason gay and bisexual people are hanged in Iran is because they erroneously believe same-sex attraction is not natural and not right. If the Boy Scouts of America and other organisations continue to hold the same view that it is not right, it will be harder for us to see a change in oppression elsewhere in America or the world. It'll probably be a domino effect?once one country or organisation changes their stance, another country or organisation will change their stance. It seems unlikely countries like Iran will stop what they're doing, but it could happen, and it's more likely to happen if other countries first stop oppressing the people who don't deserve to be oppressed.

And if everyone lived in your world there would be no war, homelessness, no one would be rich, or poor, no one would ever need or want anything. Wow, what a boring place to live.

[theyarecomingforyou]

And if everyone lived in your world there would be no war, homelessness, no one would be rich, or poor, no one would ever need or want anything. Wow, what a boring place to live.

I really hope you were being sarcastic. :s

[FloatingFatMan]

Showing that the UK is far more forward thinking and reasonable than the US :p

OT: See? That's what you get for whingeing about a bit of tax. ;) Should have put up with it and stayed a colony, but noooooo. You have to kick up a fuss, go independent and end up with loonies running the place and WAY worse taxes! :p

Only joking, honest!

[Tarvis123]

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

I ask this because at my old job, I worked in a place that attracted predominately gay men (a nude bath house) and no one higher up in the company cared, or sometimes would think it was funny, when gay men would sexual harass me and ask me to feel them up. There are many more examples, but it seems society as a whole has a double standard when it comes to discrimination depending on if the discrimination is towards a majority or a minority.

Regarding the original topic, you can either keep your private business your own private business and join, or just simply don't give money to a company that you feel offends your lifestyle.

[Calum Veteran]

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.

But there is no forcing here. I am not trying to force any of my beliefs on anyone. Are you suggesting that people shouldn't protest, debate, and discuss issues? That is all I am doing here and it is all I have advocated throughout this thread. Trying to convince people that they are wrong and I am right is what happens during a discussion and debate. It is not forcing; it is attempting to convince by discussion. Are you seriously suggesting people shouldn't explain why they believe someone is wrong? Ever?

You can't suggest that it should be accepted blindly and without consideration. That's as bad as the things you are railing against.

It must be a decision. At some point people will decide it's so obvious as to no longer require discussion, but that is in and of itself a decision as well.

We don't allow schools to discriminate against sexuality as it's a mandated function of the state. We do however discriminate against genders all of the time (girls gyms etc), and this is no different. More to the point, the club has a right to decide what its members ascribe to. If you don't ascribe to their views then you shouldn't join and the club should have the right to stop you joining. Imagine a KKK member saying you can't discriminate against me for being white and joining a black club. We allow it in schooling for things like Jewish schools and Islamic schools. This is no different.

You should stop using oppression. There is no oppression in this. The BSA is not forcing anything on gay kids, it's not campaigning against them, it's merely defining the boundaries on which it operates. You are using words that you know aren't right, but you also know people can't argue against (see below with relation to this also). It's similar to the "Internet filters block kiddy porn therefore if you are against internet filters you are pro-kiddy porn" misnomer, and equally offensive to the people you use it against.

The issue with that argument is that heterosexuality is still considered the norm by society (and scientifically is the norm (meaning the majority of people)). You cannot discriminate against the majority. This is why calling a white man a cracker isn't a racial slur. It's also why there are no "white" racial slurs.

The reason the parents should have this option is because it's their club. They make up the majority. If they called a vote at an AGM, then it would still pass this way. That's the basis of the decision.

[. . .]

I'm not suggesting it shouldn't be considered?I'm just telling you my opinion on the matter, after I considered it.

It seems we're just not going to agree on this issue. The main reason I'm against the Boy Scouts enforcing this policy is because they're erroneously teaching kids and other influential people that same-sex attraction is wrong. That view ends up influencing bullies and other people that their views against same-sex attraction are correct, and it leads them to believe that the harm they're causing is justified. Whether that's the intention of the Boy Scouts or not, it's an unavoidable consequence, and they must be held partly responsible for promoting the erroneous view that it is unnatural and wrong. I've only mentioned one way their view can lead to harm, but I have mentioned other ways in a previous post.

As I state, I'm not trying to force anyone into anything. A lot of people are posting against me in this thread, but all I'm advocating is protesting, debating, and discussing this with those in charge of the Boy Scouts. Why do people appear to have a problem with that?

Unfortunately, I have pointed out how this is oppression. You cannot reasonably deny or escape that reality. I don't like that fact as much as you do, but by the dictionary definition, what the Boy Scouts of America are doing is oppressing gay and bisexual people. It is not similar to that misnomer at all. I have provided the definition of 'oppress' and pointed out, underneath that definition, exactly how the Boy Scouts of America are oppressing citizens. How can you tell me that is not correct, when the definition is right there? The reasons you state for this not being oppression have nothing to do with the definition I provided. By the definition provided, found at the credible resource Dictionary.com, this is oppression.

People can discriminate against the majority. Someone creating a club that only allows black people in would be discriminating against white people. It's still discrimination. That is why my argument is valid. A parent could state that they don't wish their kid to mix with a heterosexual kid, for fear that their kid will grow up to be heterosexual. It could happen. It doesn't matter whether it's "the norm." The fact you're bringing that up indicates you're sympathising with those who are unjustly prejudice. If you believe an organisation should cater for a parent who doesn't want their child mixing with a gay child, you must believe they should cater for a parent who doesn't want their child mixing with a heterosexual child, or your view is hypocritical and highly unfair; your view supports unjust prejudice.

[. . .]

You use it in the way it means literally from your point of view.

So you love chocolate ice cream, thus you say "Patently chocolate is the best". My issue is that this is not clearly true, regardless of whether it is true or not.

It's just over use of the word/language.

Patently this explanation was needed (because you asked for it :p (thus clearly there was a need for it)).

It's because I'm old fashioned and actually speak English (as opposed to American etc etc). I studied Latin and HATE the way the English language is used now days, so I'm probably a bit more susceptible to being irked my this :p

We might have to take this to a personal message conversation, as it could steer the thread off-topic. But I'll try to keep it on-topic here, as I'd like everyone else who has your view to understand my position on this. Firstly, I don't remember ever using the term 'patently' :p I may have used other terms that mean the same thing, and I think I understand what you're saying. Are you saying the way I convey my points makes it sound as if I believe I am definitely 100% correct? If so, I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong because I don't think I should put "in my opinion" after everything, so how else do I get across that I believe it is just my opinion?

There you go again. You claim to be Mr. Logical Brains and Rationality one post, then admit your opinion is based on emotion. What "reason" are you using? It seems to me your argument is based solely on what you personally think is "right". Did you study the BSA history, the personal beliefs of it's owners? Did you look into what parents think? I'm pretty sure you did none of that, you came into this with a pre-conceived emotional bias - that BSA is wrong - and your "logical" conclusion perfectly matched your emotional bias. [. . .]

As I mentioned in my previous post, one can be emotional about their arguments and their arguments still be rational and logical. I didn't admit my opinion is based on emotion. Why do you keep misrepresenting my views? I made that view clear in my previous post. I mentioned that I am emotive when expressing my opinions. My opinions are based on reason and logic. Whether something causes harm or not is the main driving force behind whether I deem something reasonable or not, at least in this case. The reason I am so emotional about these opinions is because I have spent time forming them from logic and reason, so I am very confident that I am right. But I always invite people to publicly prove me wrong. If I have formed an opinion based on logic and reason, I am going to believe I am right until I am proven wrong, but I still acknowledge that any of my beliefs could possibly be proven wrong. I don't ever conclude my opinion on an issue until I have thoroughly investigated arguments for and against.

I'm well aware of much of the history of the Boy Scouts of America, I'm aware of the founders' personal beliefs, and I'm aware of what many of the parents believe. But none of that should have any effect on whether this policy of theirs is fair or not. As is the case, the founders' personal beliefs and the beliefs of many of the parents aren't fine, in my opinion. So I ask, how can you be pretty sure about something you have no idea about? You shouldn't be "pretty sure" until you have asked the questions. I came into this with no bias. I looked at all of those issues, knew that the founders and many of the parents hold unfair views, realised how much harm this policy could cause, realised that no harm would be caused if this policy was stopped, and made my decision based on that?which outcome would result in no harm being caused or less harm being caused.

[. . .]

There is nothing wrong with forming opinions and beliefs based on emotion, but don't think we're so stupid to believe your level of bigotry and hatred stems from a thoughtful internal debate or an exhaustive investigation into the facts.

No matter what I tell you, it appears you're going to state and assume otherwise. Are you attempting to misrepresent my views merely because you are not able to refute my opinions against this policy, or is it for another reason?

I have come to the conclusion I have on this issue from a thoughtful internal debate or an exhaustive investigation into the facts.

[. . .]

That's one way to put it. Another would be that you are trying to coerce them - through protests and shaming - to change their policy. I don't know how they define things in the UK, but that sounds like you're trying to force them into taking a position that would satisfy your beliefs, not theirs.

[. . .]

'Coerce' implies force. I am not forcing anyone into anything. You should really explain this view of yours clearly because you keep suggesting I am forcing people, even though I have told you many times I am not. I am protesting and I am telling people that the Boy Scouts enforce a certain policy. That is not force. Standing outside the Boy Scouts HQ with a sign is not forcing them into anything. Telling people what the Boy Scouts believe is not forcing anything.

[. . .]

The Girl Scouts of America are burdening males 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.

The All Girl boarding schools are burdening males 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.

The All Male boarding schools are burdening females 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.

[. . .]

You don't need to mention any of that because none of those issues are the issues we're debating. I notice how you didn't refute that what the Boy Scouts are doing is oppressing gay and bisexual people.

[. . .]

Then start presenting them in a consistent manner.

I have been consistent. My views have remained the same, although I am inviting people to prove me wrong and change them. I accidentally badly worded two of my points, due to me rushing the replies (as I have work to do), but I promptly corrected myself, as you are aware. I have been consistent.

Thing is, this can be applied to so many things that have nothing to do with the topic. Some people use the same arguments for legalizing marijuana and fewer restrictions on copyright, etc.

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

And if everyone lived in your world there would be no war, homelessness, no one would be rich, or poor, no one would ever need or want anything. Wow, what a boring place to live.

That is not true at all. I wouldn't like war or homelessness, but considering I'd love to be a billionnaire, I certainly wouldn't wish there to be no rich. It would be nice if there was no poor, either. I don't believe any of that would make for a boring world. Are you not entertained by other things in life (such as books, TV shows, films, the Internet, wildlife etc.)?

[articuno1au]

OT: See? That's what you get for whingeing about a bit of tax. ;) Should have put up with it and stayed a colony, but noooooo. You have to kick up a fuss, go independent and end up with loonies running the place and WAY worse taxes! :p

Only joking, honest!

I'm Australian. I agree ;)

[Calum Veteran]

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

I definitely would. There are cases of saunas and other organisations that don't allow straight people, in the United Kingdom. There was even mention of a holiday camp specifically for gay people. I am against all of those, as I am against this.

[rfirth]

Lots of Eagle Scouts are giving back their medals

[articuno1au]

That's absolutely outstanding.

I'm all in favour of that.

[Touchadowns]

<snipped out off-topic paragraph>

As I state, I'm not trying to force anyone into anything. A lot of people are posting against me in this thread, but all I'm advocating is protesting, debating, and discussing this with those in charge of the Boy Scouts. Why do people appear to have a problem with that?

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

Unfortunately, I have pointed out how this is oppression. You cannot reasonably deny or escape that reality. I don't like that fact as much as you do, but by the dictionary definition, what the Boy Scouts of America are doing is oppressing gay and bisexual people. It is not similar to that misnomer at all. I have provided the definition of 'oppress' and pointed out, underneath that definition, exactly how the Boy Scouts of America are oppressing citizens. How can you tell me that is not correct, when the definition is right there? The reasons you state for this not being oppression have nothing to do with the definition I provided. By the definition provided, found at the credible resource Dictionary.com, this is oppression.

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

I'm well aware of much of the history of the Boy Scouts of America, I'm aware of the founders' personal beliefs, and I'm aware of what many of the parents believe. But none of that should have any effect on whether this policy of theirs is fair or not. As is the case, the founders' personal beliefs and the beliefs of many of the parents aren't fine, in my opinion. So I ask, how can you be pretty sure about something you have no idea about? You shouldn't be "pretty sure" until you have asked the questions. I came into this with no bias. I looked at all of those issues, knew that the founders and many of the parents hold unfair views, realised how much harm this policy could cause, realised that no harm would be caused if this policy was stopped, and made my decision based on that?which outcome would result in no harm being caused or less harm being caused.

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

Edited July 24, 2012 by Calum