Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Phred said:No problem. BSA wants to discriminate, that's fine. But kiss federal funding goodbye.
crazyfingers said:Is there a reason why you think that the BSA website would admit that he was gay?
ChristianCenturion said: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 said: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.
It has to do with discrimination. Colleges that openly discriminate cannt participate in loan programs and cannot receive grants from the government.ChristianCenturion said: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,
Lambs Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District,
Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District 21 of Wheeling Township,
Boy Scouts of America v. Till,
ChristianCenturion said: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,
Lambs Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District,
Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District 21 of Wheeling Township,
Boy Scouts of America v. Till,
crazyfingers said: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'm responding to your post, which I'm perfectly entitled to do on an open forum.Adiya said:So now you're answering for him too? Priceless.
There might be a very good reason for that. Perhaps, say, that about 80% of what you say is irrelevent.No matter what I say, your response is that it's irrelevent,
ebia said: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.
about 80% of what you say is irrelevent.
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:Adiya said:There is nothing in any of your posts that I have not addressed.
me said:"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."
Only against you, pretty much. If what you write is irrelevent, then I'm entitled to call it on that.This argument of yours is weak, and all too common for you, it seems.
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.In case you hadn't noticed, this particular way of looking down on a woman, is antiquated.
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).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 rest my case.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.
More irrelevence.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.
Adiya said:
No, the FLAW is when you begin to assume that sexual orientation is an intrinsic part of a 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.
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.
But it remains a valid hypothetical whether you personally like I t or not.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.
Your stance on discrimination against gays and lesbians has been made rather clear in dozens of threads on these forums.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.
No need you do a very good job of it.Oh, you don't have to school me on discrimination. Trust me.
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 doesnt change the fact that the boy scouts practice and advocate discrimination.Why do you keep throwing discrimination into this, when it has nothing whatsoever to do with it?
And what, pray tell, is the color of my skin?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.
Seriously... stop telling me about slavery and racism ok?
Moving on would mean ignoring blatant hate and prejudice and the government support of that hate and prejudice.
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.
outlaw said:[/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:
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.Adiya said:
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,
ebia said: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:
ebia said: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.
Adiya said: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.
ebia said: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.
A deliberate overstatement, but put in the same list of people who won't get into heaven.Adiya said:That St. Paul rates as equal?
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.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.
The post was responded to. The specific examples were not.Also, you suggest that I didn't respond to the following post by yourself:
It was responded to:
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.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 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.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.
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.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.
Adiya said: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.
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.But if you'll recall:
I did not call homosexuality an "orientation". I merely demonstrated what those of you were stating about it.
crazyfingers said: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 said: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".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?