The Boy Scouts and Hypocrisy

The BBQ Pit
61

Hey, I’m simply suggesting that your kid may be able to understand that somebody’s being discriminated against. I’m not saying you should keep him from an activity he enjoys. I’m sharing my experience as a child under similar circumstances (related to black people in my community) to suggest that he might get it, even if the specifics are fuzzy for him. I know a fair number of children under 10 who are vegetarians, for example, not because their parents are but because the moral issues matter to them. And I knew what “gay” was by the time I was about 8. I knew it because it was used as an epithet. By the time I was 12, I was regularly hit, pushed, kicked, snubbed and insulted by other children. All of the physical violence was from boys my age who were neighbors. And scouts, though that’s not my point. My point is that children learn attitudes toward people, and that as adults we communicate attitudes even if it’s not done overtly or as official policy. No, my girl scout troup didn’t ever discuss homosexuality. Yes, “lezzie” was definitely a perjorative used when the leader wasn’t around.

The idea that there aren’t gay scouts, or gay leaders, or gay parents involved with scouts, is not correct. I’s contend that if scouting is going to be a safe and fun activity for everyone, not just straight or presumed straight people, BSA’s policies are not helpful.

62

Hey, I’m simply suggesting that your kid may be able to understand that somebody’s being discriminated against. I’m not saying you should keep him from an activity he enjoys. I’m sharing my experience as a child under similar circumstances (related to black people in my community) to suggest that he might get it, even if the specifics are fuzzy for him. I know a fair number of children under 10 who are vegetarians, for example, not because their parents are but because the moral issues matter to them. And I knew what “gay” was by the time I was about 8. I knew it because it was used as an epithet. By the time I was 12, I was regularly hit, pushed, kicked, snubbed and insulted by other children. All of the physical violence was from boys my age who were neighbors. And scouts, though that’s not my point. My point is that children learn attitudes toward people, and that as adults we communicate attitudes even if it’s not done overtly or as official policy. No, my girl scout troup didn’t ever discuss homosexuality. Yes, “lezzie” was definitely a perjorative used when the leader wasn’t around.

The idea that there aren’t gay scouts, or gay leaders, or gay parents involved with scouts, is not correct. I’d contend that if scouting is going to be a safe and fun activity for everyone, not just straight or presumed straight people, BSA’s policies are not helpful.

63

I’ll be happy to explain my position on this, if you’d care to point out anywhere in this thread – hell, anywhere on this board – where I indicated I did not recognize this fact.

Again, point out where I said this. Use the “Search” function – it can help in these instances. I’ll wait.

I find the stale monotony of black and white so confining. Look into the concept of “gray” sometime.

See, I support homosexual rights. I think the Boy Scouts are 100 percent wrong in their stance. I opened this thread, prepared to agree with the OP and add my voice to the chorus.

What did I see instead? “Fuck 'em, even the littlest Tiger Cub (paraphrased).” And all of a sudden, this rant went from something I could support wholeheartedly to something I had to speak out against, because it directly affected me and mine.

And the fact that Otto and others are so blinded by their passion that they are heartily pissing off those who would otherwise agree with them seems not to matter at all. Instead, I am lectured by someone ignorant of my politics and my stance on this matter. Why? Because my stepson wanted to go camping and hiking and play with friends.

There’s an old saying “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Apparently, though, that has been twisted around and raised to a new level by some radicals here. Now, for some, the saying has become “My friend can become my enemy if he doesn’t agree with me completely in lockstep.”

Sad, that.

64

Here ya go, Sauron

So, unless I’m misunderstanding that statement, it shows that you’re not sure if the BSA (leadership) is homophobic. Let me know if I’m still misconstruing your statement here.

65

Grr, submitted to quickly. The statement is definitely a fine line between you conceding the fact that the BSA isn’t homophobic and whether they’ve committed homophobic acts. To that, I’ll concede my original point and apologize.

The fact that you are allowing your stepson to be a member of this homophobic organization to me is idly sitting by.

66

stpauler: You do understand the difference between discriminating against a segment of the population, and being actively afraid of that segment of the population, don’t you?

The two are not necessarily the same thing.

67

Otto:

No offense Otto, but this is a load of crap. It;s not “yesbut” disease, it’s called living in the real world, and not allowing myself to be manipulated by rhetoric.

I doubt there’s an organization out there more than 15 minutes old that isn’t doing something I would have a problem. I think it’s stupid to preclude myself from life or those things that I think are worthwhile simply because they are flawed. Most organizations if not all, are flawed, as are most people.

It’s more realistic to take the good where you can get it, and try to make it better.

If being in favor of gay rights means that I have to vote only with gay approved parties, belong to gay approved religions, buy products made by gay approved companies and so on and so forth, or risk being labelled anti-gay, than I’ll accept the label by those stupid enough to push it. I don’t really care for the approval of stupid people. I reserve the right to think for myself and make my own decisions.

[quote]
Now you take issue with the notion that, say, one must vote against W to show that one is gay-supportive. Fine. Then show your support for gays by dropping your formal affiliation with and/or financial support of the Republican Party until such time as they stop their anti-gay rhetoric and attacks. Show your support by refusing to give any money to the Catholic Church until it stops wasting it on its anti-gay campaign. Show your support by refusing to give money to the Scouts until they knock off their anti-gay crap too. And maybe consider giving some of that money to the organizations who are battling every day against the damage that the anti-gay organizations inflict.

For lack of a better term, put your money where your mouth is.

[quote]

I’m not sure if you simply don’t know better, or are perpetrating a point blank fraud.

Democrats signed Doma, too. Bill Clinton is the originator of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, a policy that is mirrored by the BSA.

So, if I follow your advice, clearly I can’t vote Democrat either. Do you vote Democrat, Otto? How can you support their anti-gay legislation? Shouldn’t you put your money where your mouth is, or admit that you are anti-gay?

And what about the armed forces? Do you support our armed forces and the soldiers in it? Do you support our country? They have the same don’t ask, don’t tell policy as the BSA.

How can you, according to your own logic, support our soldiers or anybody who associates or supports the military? How can you even live in this country, if this is your criteria.

What seems to be pretty clear to me, is that there is a certain selectivity going on here.

I think it’s transparent, and it’s fucking obvious, and it sucks.

Don’t support the Republicans or you’re anti-gay. Don’t support the Catholics or you’re anti-gay. Don’t support the BSA or your anti-gay.

But you don’t apply this same standard evenly. Just to organizations you dislike, or that you wish to take issue with.

It looks to me like a blatant act of manipulation, an attempt to coerce compliance with your preferences under the false umbrella of being pro-gay. It’s simply an excuse to attack these organizations with the same prejudicial and discriminatory techniques that you claim, by being pro-gay, to take issue with.

If in fact you actually mean what you say, then how come you’re not denouncing Clinton, the military, Democrats and anybody else that’s doing anything that’s anti-gay?

Why are you just stopping there? What about all kinds of other discrimination or morally reprehensible action on the part of organizations? It seems to me that you are telling me that I should withdraw my support from any organization that has aspects I disagree with.

Are you willing to tell me that you agree with every aspect of every organization of which you are associated with?

If not, it seems to me that you’re being hypocritical in order to manipulate my support and associations.

So which is it?

And please feel free to list the company you work for, the organizations you belong to and the products you buy so we can analyze them to ensure their compliance with good morality.

68

Yup, I’m sure you understand the common use of the word “Homophobia” as opposed to some linguistic dissection of the word to ascertain its meaning. Like the word “jackass”. I’m sure you don’t think I’m calling you “Jack the Donkey”.

69

May we please once and for all jam a stake through the heart of the idea that “homophobia” is limitied in its meaning to “afraid of homosexuals”? It has never to my knowledge ever been limited to that connotation by the (for lack of a better term) pro-gay side. It has always been used to connote fear of and/or dislike/hatred of homosexuals, as well as actions which indicate said fear and/or dislike/hatred. The “I’m not afraid of homosexuals, therefore I’m not homophobic” routine is tired and lame, and intellectually dishonest.

Not intended as a swipe at Sauron specifically, his post just served as a convenient vehicle.

70

“Linguistic dissection of the word to ascertain its meaning.” You mean, like looking it up in the dictionary? Or can I just choose to make the word mean whatever I want it to when it suits my purposes?

There’s two issues: “Discrimination,” which I’m sure the BSA is guilty of, and “homophobia.” I have no idea how many BSA leaders have an irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals. Hence my earlier statement.

But back to my original point: Since we’re not arguing about this, is it safe to say you agree with me that saying, essentially, “Fuck the littlest Tiger Cub” is wrong?

On preview: Otto, I’m somewhat confused, since my dictionary (Webster’s) definies “homophobia” as “an irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals.” It says nothing about actions. If you’re gonna change the definition of the word, I need a program to keep up.

While we’re on the subject, though: When you said “Fuck 'em” in reference to the littlest Tiger Cub, did you mean the word in its sexual connotation, or its physical attack connotation?

I mean, if we’re parsing words and all.

71

Well, as long as we’re parsing words and all…

I suggest you read some of the early “gay lib” literature to understand how the term “homophobia” has been used since the beginning of the movement.

Now this is really pathetic.

72

No, no I don’t. Linguistic dissection would mean trying to break apart a word to understand its meaning instead of taking its word for its actual definition and common usage.
To remove all petty doubts:

From m-w.com

73

Huh. I must have missed the part where I said not to vote for a particular candidate based purely on party affiliation. I could have sworn I talked about severing one’s formal party affiliation and not giving them money.

For the record, I have no formal party affiliation. I vote for the candidate. And I did not vote for Bill Clinton in 1996 precisely because he signed DOMA. Both of my senators and my Congresswoman voted against it.

First, I reject categorically the notion that “supporting the armed forces” equates to “supporting our country.” And in point of fact I don’t support the armed forces and I withhold a portion of my federal taxes for exactly that reason.

You might, just for the fun of it, take issue with what I actually said instead of making stuff up.

Um, why exactly would I take a group that isn’t anti-gay to task for being anti-gay, what with them not being anti-gay and all?

I have and I do.

What I said was that there comes a point where the bad outweighs the good. At that point continuing to support that organization legitimately opens up the supporter to accusations of being “bad.”

Irrelevant.

Let’s see, I believe I shall refrain from revealing my employer. Suffice it to say that my company fully complies with the laws of my state, county and city which prohibt anti-gay discrimination, and it has a non-discrimination policy which includes sexual orientation. As for organizations with which I am affiliated, I’m sure I’ll leave out a few but they include the ACLU, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and Amnesty International. I once was affiliated with the Human Rights Campaign but my disagreement with them on certain issues led me to sever my support. The bad outweighed the good.

Feel free to scour the web for each of those organizations I support to try to find things to post that I ight isagree with…

74

Before this policy went into effect, the military was in the habit of ASKING, if not outright INVESTIGATING, whether or not its members were gay/lesbian. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” was a compromise, as most good political actions are. The military had to quit badgering its members about whether or not they were gay, but the gay members were not allowed to be out, as straight members were. So the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy wasn’t homophobic. It was a step away from homophobia. Perhaps one day the US military will not care whether or not its members are gay, straight, or furry, as long as they’re good soldiers/airmen/sailors. Until then, “don’t ask, don’t tell” is a step in the right direction. It’s not perfect, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the way things used to be.

75

You know what? You’re right. I apologize for that tactic. It was unnecessary and unseemly.

I still take you to task for the original remark, though. I believe that was low, and uncalled-for.

Both you and stpauler have made some relevant arguments regarding the etymology of “homophobia.” I gotta disagree with you regarding the establishment of one meaning of the word in the gay-lib culture as applying to our culture as a whole, though.

stpauler’s cite carries much more weight with me, and I’m willing to be convinced the word “homophobia” can safely be applied to the act of discriminating against homosexuals. I can honestly tell you, though, that I was using the term in the sense of the Webster’s definition I quoted earlier, which to my mind draws a distinction between itself and outright discrimination.

76

Otto:

Oh, well in that case, I just categorically reject all your arguments that I don’t like.

I am curious though about your withholding. I wasn’t aware there was a provision for withholding your Federal taxes as a protest against government policy.

I am wondering if this is synonymous with some form of extralegal noncompliance.

My question was if you have a moral problem with any of your companies activities.

As for being associated, do you mean that you make the occasional donation, or are you an active participant?

I’m really not asking about the money you give to fight injustice. I’m assuming you have other activities and organizations. Perhaps I am mistaken and you spend all your time and effort fighting injustice. Nothing wrong with it if you do. I’m more looking for the things that you do not the things that you are against.

It appears to me that you’re deliberately missing my central point, and presenting a pretty insular and naive point of view. Are you completely dissociated from all groups persons and organizations from which you have moral qualms, or not?

Lynn:

I’m not sure why one would want to compromise with an inherently bigoted stance.

I would not really consider an act of valor to effect such a compromise which gives credence to the an openly bigoted standpoint.

I focussed on the issue because Homebrew on it as an example of bigoted legislation.

I dunno. I wonder about this. I’m not sure that a compromise with a bigoted and I beleive unconstitutional law serves to makes things better. It gives credence and precedent to bigoted stances.

77

Okay I’m just gonna side-step the doodoo of yet another exploding discussion about the same old sorry topics and relook at new issues in the OP.

  1. I flat-out fail to see how the BSA has a case here. If my independent reading has been correct, Conneticut has a state-wide governmental non-discrimination policy. Furthermore, on a national level, I believe the government is wrangling over whether private institutions funded or promoted by the government itself are allowed to discriminate in their hiring or caring practices. There is a fundamental difference in target marketing (i.e: towards gay and lesbian needs) and discrimination (using the above example, excluding straight people who may have the same or similar needs). The BSA discriminates as a private organization. The BSA is allowed to do so under law. Its their pool to pee in if they like. However, many state governments will not and can not sponsor them for that exact reason.
78

Neither the BSA nor the Catholic Church have exclusive domain over these good works. It is possible to choose a less bigoted alternative. Therefore, those who consistently rank gay-rights issues as not important enough, fail to earn the right to say they are sympathetic. In fact, it seems reasonable to wonder if perhaps they don’t support the bigoted policies afterall.

79

Because the alternative was to continue in the old way, which was to zealously investigate the merest whiff of a rumor that So-and-so was gay/lesbian. Many of the silverbacks in the military would have vastly preferred to keep to the old way, and root out homosexuality wherever it sprang up. The choice was not between the compromise and full acceptance of gay people. The choice was between the compromise and full rejection of gays in the military. Now, I’m not gay, nor do I have much of a dog in this fight, but I think that the compromise is better than total nonacceptance. Perhaps later, we can move forward another step. We’re going to have to wait for some of the older officers to retire or die off, though, because they are NOT going to change their minds.

And, of course, we aren’t going to see a more enlightened policy under Bush’s leadership, if he has anything to say about it. His core constituency is the Religious Right, and he knows that you gotta dance with those what brung ya.

80

Steady now, Homeybrew. Fair’s fair.

For instance, I am hetero to an extent that borders on zealotry. Nonetheles, I am sympathetic on gay issues, much as I am sympathetic for anyone who has legitimate “rights” issues.

Further, I am in favor of “gay marriage” in a “yeah, sure, why not?” sort of way.

Now, would I insist that my candidate demand full marriage rights for gays if such a stance would alienate the straight folks and hand the election over to the Forces of Darkness? No! Not just no, HELL no!

But by no stretch of the imagination does that mean that I “support” bigoted policies.