Shoulds gays allowed to be in the Boy Scouts?

[Phred]

No problem. BSA wants to discriminate, that's fine. But kiss federal funding goodbye.

 

[crazyfingers]

No problem. BSA wants to discriminate, that's fine. But kiss federal funding goodbye.

Yes, and all of the other "special access" and "in kind" assistance that they receive from the government needs to be eliminated. And of course, no public school, police station, fire station or other government body should sponsor any Boy Scout troops. Any of that would amount to government sponsorship of religious discrimination.

The BSA went to court to win the right to discriminate against gays and nontheists. They have to give up all of those special perks they are used to getting. They can't have it both ways.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Is there a reason why you think that the BSA website would admit that he was gay?

Is there a reason why homosexuality is determined by whether or not the person was married to another gender and if not, they are a homosexual by default?
Besides, being married to another gender doesn't even matter with those groups that wish make claims about a famous individual to further their "cause". Case in point: Gossip specialists.

 

[crazyfingers]

Is there a reason why homosexuality is determined by whether or not the person was married to another gender and if not, they are a homosexual by default?
Besides, being married to another gender doesn't even matter with those groups that wish make claims about a famous individual to further their "cause". Case in point: Gossip specialists.

I have no idea what you are talking about. If you wish to take exception to the claims made by the website Religious Tolerance from my earlier link, you might start from there.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Yes, and all of the other "special access" and "in kind" assistance that they receive from the government needs to be eliminated. And of course, no public school, police station, fire station or other government body should sponsor any Boy Scout troops. Any of that would amount to government sponsorship of religious discrimination.

The BSA went to court to win the right to discriminate against gays and nontheists. They have to give up all of those special perks they are used to getting. They can't have it both ways.

Another correction:
If a group is excluded from having access to government facilities that are offered to other groups and that exclusion is based on religious reasons or the group's adhering to religious tenets, it is a violation of the First Amendment:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

See also:
Evans v. City of Berkeley,
Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America,
Good News Club v. Milford Central School,
Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District,
Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District 21 of Wheeling Township,
Boy Scouts of America v. Till,

 

[In A Perfect World]

Another correction:
If a group is excluded from having access to government facilities that are offered to other groups and that exclusion is based on religious reasons or the group's adhering to religious tenets, it is a violation of the First Amendment:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

See also:
Evans v. City of Berkeley,
Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America,
Good News Club v. Milford Central School,
Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District,
Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District 21 of Wheeling Township,
Boy Scouts of America v. Till,

It has to do with discrimination. Colleges that openly discriminate cannt participate in loan programs and cannot receive grants from the government.

Discrimination = no funding.

It's not based on religious exclusion; it's based on the exclusion of people from the group.

"You discriminate against people; we discriminate against you"

Check out the Bob Jones vs. United States. SCOTUS ruled that the federal government's interest lay in preventing discrimination.

 

[crazyfingers]

Another correction:
If a group is excluded from having access to government facilities that are offered to other groups and that exclusion is based on religious reasons or the group's adhering to religious tenets, it is a violation of the First Amendment:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

See also:
Evans v. City of Berkeley,
Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America,
Good News Club v. Milford Central School,
Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District,
Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District 21 of Wheeling Township,
Boy Scouts of America v. Till,

I am not talking about "equal access". I am talking about special perks and special access - special stuff that only the BSA gets that other organization DO NOT GET. I suggest that you reconsider your position. The government can not SPONSOR activities that discriminate on the basis of religious belief. That has nothing to do with "equal access".

Do you have any idea what the difference is between "equal access" and "special access and special treatment"?

 

[In A Perfect World]

I am not talking about "equal access". I am talking about special perks and special access - special stuff that only the BSA gets that other organization DO NOT GET. I suggest that you reconsider your position. The government can not SPONSOR activities that discriminate on the basis of religious belief. That has nothing to do with "equal access".

Do you have any idea what the difference is between "equal access" and "special access and special treatment"?

ChristianCenturion:

Do you think that Neo-Nazi groups should be allowed to meet in elementary school and post flyers for them around the building? "Equal access", right?

Why don't the Boy Scouts find Churches to hold their darn meeting? That's what my troop did back in the day.

 

[ebia]

So now you're answering for him too? Priceless.

I'm responding to your post, which I'm perfectly entitled to do on an open forum.

No matter what I say, your response is that it's irrelevent,

There might be a very good reason for that. Perhaps, say, that about 80% of what you say is irrelevent.


BTW, I'm still waiting for you to address those two examples.

 

[""]

I'm responding to your post, which I'm perfectly entitled to do on an open forum.


There might be a very good reason for that. Perhaps, say, that about 80% of what you say is irrelevent.


BTW, I'm still waiting for you to address those two examples.

There is nothing in any of your posts that I have not addressed. This argument of yours is weak, and all too common for you, it seems.

In case you hadn't noticed, this particular way of looking down on a woman, is antiquated. It's more than an ad hominem. Much more.

about 80% of what you say is irrelevent.

Not only is there no ring of truth in it, but the fact that you use it again and again on women posters here, displays one of three things to me:
1. You were raised to talk down to women.
2. You're a woman yourself, and perhaps insecure.
3. You're a catty homosexual male who detests women.

Now I know that now all homosexual males are like this. I know quite a few of them actually, and they all treat me very well. There is a certain personality type of gay male though, that really detests women. I'm not the only one in the world who has taken notice of this. Perhaps they find us threatening, or they're jealous. Btw, here's a yahoo link lest I be accused of not providing proof that there is really such a thing as a catty gay male.

Either way, any one of the three examples would explain the constant example of catty behavior, exhibited by yourself during debates, where your logic has come out on the weak end of the argument.

 

[ebia]

There is nothing in any of your posts that I have not addressed.

Yes there is. The following examples of sins that St Paul rates as equal to homosexuality, but that the Boy Scouts do not regard as criteria of membership:

"Do you believe that buying that new car rather than giving the money to the poor is sinful? No? Then, sorry, you can't join."

"Do believe that spreading gossip about Mrs Smith is sinful? No? Sorry, you can't join."

This argument of yours is weak, and all too common for you, it seems.

Only against you, pretty much. If what you write is irrelevent, then I'm entitled to call it on that.

In case you hadn't noticed, this particular way of looking down on a woman, is antiquated.

It's got nothing to do with gender. Most of the time I don't even notice the gender icon, and when I do I don't assume it's accuate.

Not only is there no ring of truth in it, but the fact that you use it again and again on women posters here,

I couldn't care less about your gender, I simple respond to whatever you post. If you post well thought out ideas, then I'll treat it as such (whether or not I agree with it). If you post drivel then I'll treat it as such (whether or not I agree with it).

displays one of three things to me:
1. You were raised to talk down to women.
2. You're a woman yourself, and perhaps insecure.
3. You're a catty homosexual male who detests women.

I rest my case.

Now I know that now all homosexual males are like this. I know quite a few of them actually, and they all treat me very well. There is a certain personality type of gay male though, that really detests women. I'm not the only one in the world who has taken notice of this. Perhaps they find us threatening, or they're jealous. Btw, here's a yahoo link lest I be accused of not providing proof that there is really such a thing as a catty gay male.

More irrelevence.

 

[outlaw]

No, the FLAW is when you begin to assume that sexual orientation is an intrinsic part of a person.

Can you provide any legitimate evidence that sexual orientation is not intrinsic to the person?

Orientation means "the act of orienting or being oriented", hence, it is learned. A learned behavior, is not an intrinsic part of a person in such a way that it cannot be unlearned. See the DSM manuals, and just about any psychiatry journal for more information on changing behavior.

Since you brought up the DSM you might be interested in the fact that the publishers of the DSM, the American Psychological Association, disagrees with you:

From Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html

What Is Sexual Orientation?

Sexual Orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual or affectional attraction to another person. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female) and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior).

Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality. Bisexual persons can experience sexual, emotional and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex. Persons with a homosexual orientation are sometimes referred to as gay (both men and women) or as lesbian (women only).

Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Persons may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.



Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

See also: http://www.apa.org/pi/statemen.html

That would be an illogical statement being that I myself am not of the "superior white race" and my brothers were in the scouts. See, this is what happens when you don't research a topic, and you just begin to spew out empty rhetoric, assuming that it's fact. Facts have a basis in truth. Your comments did not.

But it remains a valid hypothetical whether you personally like I t or not.



A Christian religious organization founds a youth group and chooses to discriminate against people of color based on the teachings of their religions.



Christianity and the bible have been used for centuries to justify racism just as the bible is used today to justify discrimination against homosexuals. http://human-nature.com/nibbs/01/ogilvie.html

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2004/09/105656.pdf

The Yellow Peril Mystique: Origins and Vicissitudes of a Racist Discourse. Stanford M. Lyman Issue: Volume 13, Number 4 June 2000: 683 - 747


Moses in America: the Cultural Uses Biblical Narrative by Melanie Jane Wright

Noah’s Curse: The Biblical Justfication of American Slavery by Stephen Haynes


"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America



"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example."Rev. R. Furman, D.D., a Baptist pastor from South Carolina



The curse of Ham (also called the curse of Canaan) refers to the curse that Noah placed upon Cannon (the son of Ham) after Ham had inadvertatnly seen Noah naked after he had passed out drunk.
The "curse of Ham" has been used by members of major Abrahamic religions to justify racism and the enslavement of people of African ancestry, who were thought to be descendants of Ham. This racialist theory was common during the 18th-20th centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham

I have no bias. My own point of view has not become a part of this debate, where as yours (and ebia's ) has. I don't personalize debate topics, and I rarely bring in my own opinion. If you were to guess my opinion on homosexuality, as we both know, there is a 50/50 chance you'd be wrong.

Your stance on discrimination against gays and lesbians has been made rather clear in dozens of threads on these forums.

Oh, you don't have to school me on discrimination. Trust me.

No need…you do a very good job of it.

Why do you keep throwing discrimination into this, when it has nothing whatsoever to do with it?

Discrimination has nothing to do with this only if you stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes real tight and sing the happy happy joy joy song real loud…well...no…doing all that doesn’t change the fact that the boy scouts practice and advocate discrimination.

I just love the way you white folks bounce discrimination around as if it were something you were used to dealing with on a daily basis. If you want to discuss discrimination, then I may very well add a personal tone to the topic, but I didn't know that we were discussing discrimination. Discrimination is when you're not black enough, not scandinavian enough, not jewish enough, and frankly, people aren't quite sure what you are, but they know you can't be 100% of anything, so you're excluded from all of the above. That's what happens when you have a blond blue eyed grandmother, a jewish grandfather, a dark islander, and a middle eastern, all mix up into the pot that I call my family. But you know what? Discrimination is a part of life. Everybody gets some of it. Everybody. This isn't about discrimination though, and no matter how many times you stop your feet, that won't make it so.

And what, pray tell, is the color of my skin?

Seriously... stop telling me about slavery and racism ok?

Seriously stop justifying discrimination ok?

Why don't you ask the dark africans who sold the dark africans to the whites? Or did you miss that part during your education? While you're at it, you might ask the folks who sold the Irish slaves to whites as well. Or did you not know about them either?

See, that's another thing that separates me from the average african american (besides the fact that I'm light skinned, and have a variety of other races mixed in as well). I don't buy into the "blame the white man for everything" deal. It's illogical.

Move on.

Moving on would mean ignoring blatant hate and prejudice and the government support of that hate and prejudice.

 

[""]

[/size][/font]
Since you brought up the DSM you might be interested in the fact that the publishers of the DSM, the American Psychological Association, disagrees with you:

No they don't, because if you had read my post, you'd have seen that what I said is the DSM says that behavior can be changed. It wasn't me who said that homosexuality is an orientation. I simply defined orientation for you, which suggests learned behavior, and then I reminded you that the DSM says that behavior can be changed.

So.....


Nice try but no cigar.

 

[ebia]

No they don't, because if you had read my post, you'd have seen that what I said is the DSM says that behavior can be changed. It wasn't me who said that homosexuality is an orientation. I simply defined orientation for you, which suggests learned behavior,

It might suggest it to you, but (at best) it's a quirk of the language and does nothing to demonstrate that what is generally called "homosexual orientation" is a learned behaviour.

 

[""]

Yes there is. The following examples of sins that St Paul rates as equal to homosexuality, but that the Boy Scouts do not regard as criteria of membership:

That St. Paul rates as equal? Listen, I don't know where you received your Christian education, but Paul doesn't rate anything equal to anything. No offense meant to you, but Paul didn't write the 10 commandments. Paul didn't die on the cross. Paul isn't the son of God. Paul is an apostle, and while I give him credit for being a wonderful example of Christ, I won't glorify him to a place of honor, as that would be a sin. So hop right back on that gravy train ebia, and go chow down on some of God's word. It seems that you missed a large portion. (that last line is said with a bit of humor, so please take it as such. )

Also, you suggest that I didn't respond to the following post by yourself:

On this basis they should test everyone's ideas of what is and is not sin, and refuse entry to all who deny any sin:

"Do you believe that buying that new car rather than giving the money to the poor is sinful? No? Then, sorry, you can't join."

"Do believe that spreading gossip about Mrs Smith is sinful? No? Sorry, you can't join."

AFAIK the Boy Scouts don't do this, so either you are wrong about what the issue is, or they are applying double-standards.

It was responded to:

Also, I beg to differ on this illogical argument.
Show me ONE instance where they have allowed a KNOWN liar, a KNOWN theif, (knowingly allowed them) etc., who believed their behavior was appropriate, to instruct children in their organization.

As I attempted to prove to you in my post above, there's a big difference between somebody who doesn't tithe, and somebody who teaches people that it's ok to skip tithing.

There's a big difference between somebody who lies, and somebody who openly lies without shame, and teaches that lying is not a sin.

There's a big difference between somebody that has sex outside of marriage, and somebody who openly has sex outside of marriage without feeling any shame, and also teaches that having sex outside of marriage is perfectly fine.

Now granted, many of these activities have become common place in the world today, but there IS a difference between participating in the above behaviors, and being one who not only participates in the behavior but works with children in an organization as a mentor.

God bless you ebia. You have a cross up there by your name, as do I. If you wish to debate further, I will, but if you wish to throw insults back and forth, please do so privately. We should be more careful about this in front of non-Christians. For my part, I apologize for throwing the darts back in your direction. This is merely a debate, and it is not to be taken so personally ebia. I realize that you and I do not agree, but please, let us attempt be a better example of Christ's love, for those who don't believe, and also to one another.

Your sister in Christ.

 

[""]

It might suggest it to you, but (at best) it's a quirk of the language and does nothing to demonstrate that what is generally called "homosexual orientation" is a learned behaviour.

It's not a quirk, it's a legitimate definition.

But if you'll recall:
I did not call homosexuality an "orientation". I merely demonstrated what those of you were stating about it.

 

[ebia]

That St. Paul rates as equal?

A deliberate overstatement, but put in the same list of people who won't get into heaven.

Listen, I don't know where you received your Christian education, but Paul doesn't rate anything equal to anything. No offense meant to you, but Paul didn't write the 10 commandments. Paul didn't die on the cross. Paul isn't the son of God. Paul is an apostle, and while I give him credit for being a wonderful example of Christ, I won't glorify him to a place of honor, as that would be a sin.

Where have I suggested glorify St Paul? What I have suggested is that one of the very few condemnations of any forms of homosexuality in the bible condemns the likes of greed and gossip in exactly the same terms. So treating homosexuals and gossips differently betrays a prejudice.

Also, you suggest that I didn't respond to the following post by yourself:

It was responded to:

The post was responded to. The specific examples were not.

As I attempted to prove to you in my post above, there's a big difference between somebody who doesn't tithe, and somebody who teaches people that it's ok to skip tithing.

There's a big difference between somebody who lies, and somebody who openly lies without shame, and teaches that lying is not a sin.

And there is a big difference between the odd comment slipping out, and gossiping without shame. But if the Boy Scouts are similar to just about any other church in the world, then they are full of people who gossip about people without shame.

There's a big difference between somebody that has sex outside of marriage, and somebody who openly has sex outside of marriage without feeling any shame, and also teaches that having sex outside of marriage is perfectly fine.

There's a big difference between buying cheap shoes because you are struggling to make ends meet, and openly saying that it's ok to buy from companies that exploit child labour.

Now granted, many of these activities have become common place in the world today, but there IS a difference between participating in the above behaviors, and being one who not only participates in the behavior but works with children in an organization as a mentor.

I quite agree. People who gossip, revile other, are greedy, exploit others directly or indirectly and fail to do everything in their power to help their neighbour in need, should not be allowed to mentor children.

 

[ebia]

It's not a quirk, it's a legitimate definition.[/qutoe]
A definition. Not the definition. The OED contains several meanings for orientation, only the first of which was equivalent to yours, and the more appropriate of which does not carry the implication you are making.

But if you'll recall:
I did not call homosexuality an "orientation". I merely demonstrated what those of you were stating about it.

All that would mean was that orientation was not the ideal word. Except that it is now so widely used in that way that the word itself had changed meaning - dictionaries don't really define the meaning of words, they attempt to describe the way words are used and the meanings people give them. If the whole world uses "orientation" to descibe something that cannot be changed, then that has become a legitimate meaning of orientation regardless of what OED, Macquarie or Webster might say.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I am not talking about "equal access". I am talking about special perks and special access - special stuff that only the BSA gets that other organization DO NOT GET. I suggest that you reconsider your position. The government can not SPONSOR activities that discriminate on the basis of religious belief. That has nothing to do with "equal access".

Do you have any idea what the difference is between "equal access" and "special access and special treatment"?

I do, but appearently you didn't with your opine of:

"And of course, no public school, police station, fire station or other government body should sponsor any Boy Scout troops. Any of that would amount to government sponsorship of religious discrimination."

I suppose the only qualification left out of that opinion would be the definition in the use of the word "sponsor".

 

[crazyfingers]

I do, but appearently you didn't with your opine of:

"And of course, no public school, police station, fire station or other government body should sponsor any Boy Scout troops. Any of that would amount to government sponsorship of religious discrimination."

I suppose the only qualification left out of that opinion would be the definition in the use of the word "sponsor".

Are you aware of what it is to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop?

You are aware that the federal government agrees that US Military units must not sponsor Boy Scout troops because to do so would be for the federal government to engage in religious discrimination.

Or, do you think that it's perfectly OK and constitutional for the federal government to engage in religious discrimination?