Yeah, why couldn’t you lewd, promiscuous homos just stay in the closet and not lead Tedster into a cultural sewer? Shame on you! Bad gays!
You’ll note I wasn’t referring to homosexuality, merely lewdness and promiscuity by everyone- “straights” especially. Good try, though.
The issue boils down to a private organization determining its own rules. Frankly, it’s the homosexuals who are intolerant on the matter. Either you’re in favor of freedom for everyone, or you’re not. That’s tolerance. An even more reprehensible action is to blame the scouting organization for following their beliefs, and saying they are hurting “the children.” That’s pure rhetoric in its worst form.
If you think it’s “wrong” for people to have freedom, then I guess we’l have to disagree. Doesn’t sound very tolerant to me.
I’m sorry–is there some other way to read, "Another concern of mine is the absolute sewer our popular culture has become in just a few short years. When I was growing up in cub scouts, I had no idea what a homosexuals were. "? If there is, please fill me in. I not so gud wif Inglish langwaje.
I’m all in favor of freedom for everyone. That includes my freedom to call the national leadership of BSA ignorant, backwater, pencil-dicked, bigoted morons. Let ‘em exclude to their hearts’ content. Don’t expect people to shut up about it, though.
Tedster: since you missed my last post, of which I was proud, I will repost here. For those of you who caught it, I apologize for the deliberate double-post, but I guess my last one got lost at the bottom of page 2…
**
Even if those beliefs are actively hurting people, including some of its members? Even if those beliefs are legitimizing a bigoted, ignorant viewpoint?
If I steadfastly believe that it’s my god-given duty to whack everyone I see wearing a green t-shirt with a whiffle bat, will you support me, too? It’s my stated belief that people wearing green t-shirts need to be whacked with a whiffle bat, and I’m steadfastly following my stated belief, after all.
My definition of tolerance does not include ignoring actions that actively hurt others. That comes under the definition of cowardice.
But that doesn’t confer any value to that opinion. You believe the scouts stance on homosexuality is “bigoted and ignorant;” just because you claim that does not make it so.
You’re a carjacker on the rhetorical highway. The theory of your beliefs only work if you get to define the terms of the debate, which is why it’s so important for you to be the final arbiter of things like “tolerance” and so on. That isn’t how life works.
Again, I’m sure you’re a nice person, but some of your posts don’t sound like you have very nice ideas. Should the boy scouts have to take females? Should the girl scouts have to take males?
Either freedom is good, or it’s bad, but that’s another issue entirely.
Tedster, are you even listening to yourself?
Homosexuals are not “free” to join the Boy Scouts. In fact, they are actively descriminated against. Why? Again I ask, what does sexuality, in any form, have to do with Boy Scouting?
You are very strong on tolerance, and I’m in agreement with you. I would submit, however, that if tolerance is a virtue, intolerance is thereby a vice. And the BSA as an organization is intolerant of homosexuals.
Do we act to advance the ideal of tolerance if we do not point this out, and express our disapproval? If your child, your spouse, your friend states “I hate dem queers/niggers/spics/etc.” are we, in defense of tolerance, supposed to remain silent? Heck, it’s their belief, and in order to be tolerant, I must respect it.
Of course not. Because why do we advocate tolerance? Because it is morally and ethically proper. Intolerance is not, and that which is immoral and unethical is not to be respected.
Sua
Oh, horsefeathers. The BSA claims that homosexuals cannot, by virtue of nothing besides their homosexuality, be morally straight. This is a proposition that is demonstrably untrue. Therefore, the scouts’ stance on homosexuality is bigoted and ignorant. QED.
So then you disapprove of the BSA defining the phrase “morally straight” to prima facie exclude homosexuals?
What do either of those have to do with being homosexual?
Either freedom is good, or it’s bad, but that’s another issue entirely. **
[/QUOTE]
Freedom of association, or non association, take your pick.
That’s what freedom is all about. That’s why free speech is one of our most deeply held freedoms. And, nobody is forcing you to join the Scouts. I’d wager groups are free to form their own organizations, homosexual or otherwise. It’s done all the time. Either we respect this right, or we don’t. I’m tolerant of a homosexual organization, but I don’t want to join one. And I don’t think that they should be forced to accept a “straight” male, either. They are free to set their own rules- without interference. Sounds pretty fair to me.
Tedster,
I might be wrong, but I think what PLDennison was referring to was your linking of lewdness and promiscuity with homosexuality, by saying
It’s possible to know what homosexuality is without being exposed to lewdness and promiscuity, and I wonder why you brought the whole “lewdness and promiscuity” statement up.
Also, no one I’ve read here has said that the BSA doesn’t have the right to make their own rules. What people are saying is that those rules are immoral ones, and not in the best interest of the boys that the BSA are attempting to serve. You’re right, tolerance is important, but tolerance doesn’t mean that you should suspend all judgement…even if I’m tolerant, I have the right to say, “This person or group is acting immorally.”, and that’s what people here are doing. It’s a mistake to assume that comments like this are “PC” or opposed to “traditional values”. I really don’t think that’s the case.
Sua, you’re changing the definition of tolerance again. The scouts are, by definition, tolerant. They have their beliefs, you have yours, everythings okay. Until you try to change their beliefs. Would you outlaw beliefs other than the ones you hold? Does that sound like a free society?
Tolerance does not mean acceptance of others beliefs. You have to respect other peoples opinions, even if they are “wrong.” (ultimately, an opinion.) That’s what free speech is about. That’s one of the concepts this country is founded upon.
From dictionary.com, the relevant definition of tolerance:
By definition, the BSA is intolerant. I (and many others here) recognize the beliefs of the organization, and give them the respect we think they deserve. That does not mean that we have to like these beliefs, or that we are under any obligation not to criticize them.
Not all beliefs deserve the same amount of respect. Should I respect the beliefs of fringe lunatics?
It is absolutely true that the BSA has the first amendment right to voice their opinions. I won’t support anyone who wishes to change that. But you seem to think that our right to free speech doesn’t allow for us to criticize things we don’t like, and that simply isn’t true.
You know, Tedster, the theory of your beliefs only work if you get to define the terms of the debate, which is why it’s so important for you to be the final arbiter of things like “tolerance” and so on.
I tolerate any beliefs, any perspectives, any viewpoints, any religions. I judge people and organizations on their actions. The actions that the BSA are taking towards their members are harmful. The effect of their policy is to exclude people without regard to their merits as individuals, based solely on unprovable allegations rooted in bigotry.
Nobody has an obligation to accept the hurtful actions of others. Believe whatever you want; don’t go around hurting people.
And I’d argue the same right back at them. Note that the dictionary.com definition mentions “respect” without noting that it isn’t required to accept those beliefs.
Essentially, you’re saying that anyone who doesn’t ascribe to your version of reality is intolerant, and you won’t allow that! A little too fascist for me.
Note-- I’m not in favor of violence against gays, nor straights, nor anyone else, for that matter. I believe in live and let live. We have to learn to get along. “Getting along” does not mean that private organizations must be expunged from the planet because they hold beliefs that don’t coincide with your version of morality, or the opposite. Or whatever. Either we have freedom, or we don’t. Again, that’s a different issue.
I’m more concerned with the long term ramifications. If people are told “The only right you have is to think what you want;” we have a problem. People need to be able to act on those freedoms within the laws of a free society.
This is a much, much larger issue than Scouting, or Homosexuality, you do realize that, I hope.
Who here suggested expunging the BSA?
The most amusing thing about Tedster (aside from his constant burning of straw men – who here has called for prvate organizations to be “expunged”?) is that I know without asking that even he does not believe what he says. I guarantee that he does not “respect” the beliefs of the KKK, or the Nation of Islam, or NAMBLA, or any number of organizations. But two of his oxen --the BSA and religion – just got gored, so he feels the need to pose himself as Mr. Tolerance. Hey, man, just live and let live, you know?
You know what beliefs get my respect? The ones that treat people respectfully. The BSA does not fall within those boundaries.
You can be respectful and tolerant of another persons beliefs while telling them they are wrong. We are not telling them that they only have the right to think what we want. We are telling them what they think is true is wrong. If you can’t tolerate that then you are the one being intolerant.
Essentially, that’s what would happen.
Either you’re in favor of tolerance, or you’re not. If you’re in favor of tolerance, why would you ever think that intolerance is a good thing. If you aren’t, we’ve reached a fundamental disagreement and shouldn’t debate any further. As I said before, not all belief systems deserve the same amount of respect. Doesn’t the SDMB explicitly promote the viewpoint that belief systems based in ignorance are worse than those based in fact?
Under the laws of this free society, the BSA is allowed to discriminate. Under the laws of this free society, we are allowed to criticize them for it. Where’s the conflict?
We’re really far from the OP here and we’re heading into GD territory anyway. As many of you know I dislike debates in the Pit because people use it as an excuse to get nasty with each other. Everyone here’s been rather civil so far but I’d rather not see this go downhill. Besides, a lot of GDers that dont frequent the Pit might want to add their voice.
So I’m gonna close this thread rather than move it to GD because the debate didn’t come in until late in the game. But I’d suggest someone start a GD thread. I know that the issue of gays and the BSA has been done over there but this seems to be more about the idea of freedom vs. tolerance.
Straw men and bifuraction have short half-lives over in GD. This isn’t about being for or against freedom, as Tedster has suggested more than once. It’s a more complex issue and deserves a more complex discussion.