Quite honestly I think the BS and some of their leadership is ridiculous. I think they are trying to have it both ways. I don’t blame CT for taking the steps they did. Their policies regarding discrimination against gay people bother me tremendously.
But…you know what? My seven year old came home from school one day and said that all his friends were becoming Scouts and you got to go camping and you made things and you learned how to tie knots and you went on neat trips and you got to wear a cool hat with a tiger on it. So…I let him join. He’s seven. He has plenty of time to learn about life’s unfairness and discrimination and how to stand up for others. For now he just wants to be a kid and I’m okay with that.
I must say that the fuck em all down to the Tiger Cubs comment struck a nerve with me also. Not enough to get into a battle over it…but it hurt me.
And I don’t agree with a lot that has been said from various people (I’m talking to you to, my dear…I know you apologized for some of your earlier statments…but I gotta say that was low). I guess I just don’t see where lumping little kids in with their adult leaders is doing the cause any good.
I can assure you the minute my son ever comes home and tells me they wouldn’t let a kid in or they talked bad about any group of people then I’ll have to have that talk with him about not being a Scout anymore. But for now, he’s having fun and he isn’t hurting anyone. He’s being seven and I’m okay with that for now.
The Girl Scouts have a more inclusive policy, correct?
(I was a GS, and god help me, I don’t care if they worship Satan and sacrifice puppies-you’ll get my Tagalongs when you pry them from my cold dead fingers!*)
*It’s a joke, people. If the GSA were seriously homophobic and nasty, I would not buy the cookies.
I think, despite the excursi regarding whether Scylla is being inconsistent and the putative homophobia of Sauron’s seven-year-old step-Minion (who probably would not have a clue what this whole argument is about, and just wants to have fun with other guys his age, this has been a threat with a lot of thoughtful and well-expressed views. I notice several; people have agreed with the [points weirddave made, and I want to add my own endorsement of them as well. Then to bring to notice the point Priam is making. The BSA is being inconsistent. For decades they were a quasi-public organization providing a program for all boys that was world-class and provides fond memories for a large proprotion of American adults. As such, they received an enormous amount of governmental support, and rightly so. But now, to protect their own prejudices (and because I’m sure the benighted national leadership has a clear mental picture that any man who publicly avows he’s gay must also be a molester of boys), they have stood on their almost unquestionable First Amendment right to freedom of association as a private organization to exclude gay and atheist boys and adult leaders.
And, in the gross but on target terms my father used to use in similar case, they need to either shit or get off the pot. If they’re going to be a public group enjoying goivernment support, they must get rid of their discriminatory policies and admit all boys and any adult volunteer who is not demonstrably a danger to the boys (and not use the gay=pedophile canard to exclude gay men who want to volunteer). On the other hand, if they choose to be a private organization that endorses discriminatory policies, they need to stop whining about how they’re a special organization with a program like no other that deserves public support. Yeah, National BSA Commissioners, you were that once, and you did deserve that. And you decided to quit being that. Now shut up, go away, and go scratch your mad spot.
Something I haven’t seen addressed here, though (and I’m surprised Scylla missed it), is that BAS is not a monolithic top-down organization. Local Councils have substantial power, and I know for a fact that any number of them are quietly distancint themselves from the uintatheres at the National organiztion. The man who co-convenes the local Franciscan Fellowship with my wife is a supporter of Gene Robinson and very much pro-gay-rights, and is the President of the local council. And he’s been trying for several yuears, since the Dale case, to find a via mediathat will give gay teenage boys the opportunity to engage in Scouting (at a minimum, quite reasonably setting that as a priority over gays in adult leadership roles), without jeopardizing their charter, whith National does have the right to rescind. I’ll hazard a guess that this story is duplicated easily two dozen times across America.
I am seeing alot of “You don’t agree with me, so I am going to call you bigoted, homophobic, bad”
I think the ACLU is anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-first ammendment rights because if you don’t agree with them you should be quieted.
I think the pro gay rights people are anti first ammendment because once again if you don’t agree with them, you need to be quiet.
I think pro abortion people do more damage to women’s rights than you can possibly imagine. In fact, I know this because I have done articles on the subject.
Do I think that any of these groups should be stopped from talking about what they beleive? Absolutly not! Under the first ammendment, they have a right to freedom of speech and expression.
Do these groups feel the same way about my right to expression and speech? No. More than anything would the ACLU like to stop Christians from saying anything religious. With gay and lesbian groups, you don’t agree with them, you are homophobic.
I do not support gay rights but I am not homophobic. I think alot of people get acceptance of something confused with tolerance. I tolerate alot of things that I don’t agree with. Toleration is why i can have gay friends but not approve of their lifestyle. I know some of my gay friends’ friends who would never have a straight friend much less a Christian friend. (God forbid!)
As much as gays, lesbians, atheists, etc think they are so persecuted, Christians are too. I have had horrible things said to my face. Some would like to see my typed wiped off the planet. Rmeber, for every one side of the story, there is another.
So you don’t think that gays should have the same rights as straight people…but you’re not homophobic?
Da’hell?
And yes, you’re SO persecuted because you’re a Christian…not. Do you have to risk getting the crap kicked out of you because you’re a Christian? Hell no!
Is this the same ACLU that has supported the rights of the KKK and other such groups* to stage marches? How much more can an organization do to support the first amendment than to take up the first amendment rights of another organization whose politics they abhore?
*I wanted to say neo-Nazis but I was afraid that someone would invoke Godwin’s law.
Well, “homophobic” is a pretty unfortunate construction. It results from well-intentioned PC verbalists, but like most such constructions, the seams always show. Of course, very few people are homophobic, in the sense of actually fearing someone, but the word has evolved a more-or-less accepted definition of “bigotry”. Imagine if someone had accused George Wallace of “negrophobia”.
It is hard not to sympathize with someone who has felt the crushing power of the ACLU and all thier queerjewhippy lawyers.
But, I swear, sometimes when I listen to people who tell me how Christian they are, you would think that Jesus the Nazz was the single most unforgiving and intolerant avatar to ever walk amongst. I dunno, maybe they went to a different Sunday School than I did.
elucidator, I seriously believe that if some of these “Christians” had been around in Christ’s time, not only would they NOT have followed him, they would have been right there, screaming, “Give us Barabus!” Because they’re more concerned with being righteous, rather than doing what Christ said.
Love your God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. 'Nuff said.
You do raise a valid point that some liberals can be as vicious as conservatives in pursuit of their own issues of importance. But I cannot count the number of examples in your post that are flat out wrong. In doing you articles do you consult original sources, or what other people tell you they say?
If one of these people were to say to you, “I’m not anti-Christian, but I don’t think that Christians have any right to [fill in the blank],” would you think he was saying something intelligent or deluding himself?
In 1993, GSUSA made the word “God” optional (or substiutional) in the promise. And the organization has a policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
They also seem to be very targeted by the religious right for doing both of those things.
24 But, verily, I say unto thee
25 That if thy neighbor speaks of “decor”
26 As if it were a thing that mattered
27 And hath unseemly numbers of show tunes
26 Therefore shall ye cast the gimlet eye upon him
27 And snicker amongst thy brethren
26 “Lo! Here is one confused as to holes! Thier nature, and thier purposes”
27 And this shall be the Oldest Joke in the Book
28 Forevermore.
I’m not Otto, but I don’t get your reasonning here. There’s no obvious and absolute equivalence between “supporting the armed forces” and “suporting your country”. So, ** Otto ** rejection can’t just be dismissed as you just did, except if you can somehow prove there’s such an equivalence.
If you state somewhere, for instance “I reject the notion that liking straweberries equate liking the colour red”, could I respond that I’m going to ignore your argument from now on, because for some reason, in my mind, one can’t like strawberries and dislike the red coulour at the same time?
Anyway, though I essentially never get involved in gay-issues related threads, in this case, I’d clearly support ** Otto ** 's point of view. Chosing to belong to an organization is endorsing their point of view, and I’ve a hard time understanding that someone could join an association if he has serious moral qualms concerning the policies of this association. Except of course when there are very strong incentives to do so. For instance, if, say, you’ve been unemployed for quite a long time and finaly found a job in a company you don’t really approve the policies of.
But honestly “the minions think it’s fun to belong to this group” isn’t a compelling reason in my mind. Or else, it means that you actually don’t care that much about discrimination against gays. It’s not like you’re depriving the childs from food or shelter, or even like there isn’t any other fun activity they could practice/ group they could belong to. As for them not being able to understand your motivations, paint me unconvinced. And anyway, don’t we sometimes say “no” to childrens without giving any explanation? Or just a “I’ll explain you later, when you’ll be able to understand”?
Now, Sauron, I’m wondering where exactly you draw a line. Apparently belonging to an openly discriminating association doesn’t bother you as long as the kids have fun. Would you accept to join, say, the KKK if the minion told you “all the cool kids belong to their soccer team” (assuming that the local KKK branch would have for some reason a sport team and don’t talk about politics or racial issues during the soccer training)? You might think it’s caricatural, but honestly I don’t think so. It’s quite similar in my mind and I’m unsure how exactly you can tell at the same time “this group discriminates against gays” “I think discriminating against gays is really a bad thing” and “I belong to the group, what’s the issue?”.
More generally, I’m really surprised that you assume (apparently) that most people would voluntarily (not compelled, like my unemployed guy above, or by lack of alternative choice) belong to any organization while at the same time seriously disagreeing with this organization’s policy. I wouldn’t. ** Otto ** wouldn’t. Contrarily to you, I tend to assume that most people wouldn’t, either. We’ve aparently a different perception of what the “average joe” choice is in such circumstances, and I doubt there’s a way to tell who is right.
Anyway, once again and honestly, I can only perceive your take in two ways :
-There’s a little “schizophrenia” going on (your right hand just don’t want to see what your left hand is doing, and you actually manage to ignore the contradiction)
or/and :
-The issue at hand (gay discrimination) doesn’t bother you that much.
First it’s justifiable to condemn and punish an entire group a certain way because of their official position (France, inexplicably punishing even French-owned companies that employ mostly American workers), then the next day, it’s not (Boy Scouts). I don’t think it makes much sense in either case. In both cases, the criticism should go to the official stance, and the punishment only to those who support it, which is most certianly not always the same thing as the membership. There is a big difference between criticizing the Pope’s positions and criticizing Catholics. A HUGE difference in some cases.
I’m an Eagle Scout. Or maybe I’m not anymore. I have no real connection with the BSA, but mostly because I don’t have kids and am simply not in the strage of my life in which I would be. When I do face the choice, I’m not sure whether I’d want to simply say fuck it to the organization, or fight to change it from the inside. However, both options seem reasonable. Republicans have an anti-homosexual equal rights platform. But then, Republicans have a platform committed to fiscal security too. If there weren’t people within the party fighting to change the former and make the latter more than just a sick joke, then maybe a blanket condemnation would make sense, but there are and it doesn’t.
You wouldn’t happen to have a link to any of those articles, would you? Because if they’re as rambling and crack-addled as your posts, they should be a hoot to read.
clair, check back to weirddave’s post for a clear justification of how someone can belong to an organization with all of whose principles one does not agree, and what is incumbent on someone who does.
And the Barad Dur Tiger Cub Den does not itself have homophobic practices; it’s merely a piece of a series of programs put on by a local council belonging to a national group which does. What we have in Sauron and Aries’s case is a seven-year-old boy who doesn’t know homophobia from Home Improvement but does know that it’s fun to get a neat hat and be part of a group that goes fun places and does fun things – and that’s all I’m seeing them defend.
In case nobody has noticed, the two of them are sort of our “point men” on issues of homophobic groups – they belong to a SBC church and have in the past asked probing questions about their church’s policies after reading about issues here. Maybe Sauron will be moved to check into what the Birmingham Scout council’s policies are. But I can guarantee that he won’t be so inclined from having blatant insults thrown at his kid for having the effrontery to want to have fun with his friends in a group he has no idea about the affiliation of. As at least one of our gay activist men, with a son in that age group, ought to appreciate.
Maybe your gay “friends’” friends simply do not want to associate with someone who would deny them equal rights? “Lifestyle” indeed.
Get down to basics: you do not approve of men falling in love with men or women falling in love with women. That is the only difference between “gay lifestyle” and “straight lifestyle.” What exactly is it about people falling in love with one another disturbs you so much?
I cut and pasted the false accusation you made in my earlier post.
You claimed:
Otto’s original attack on children who belong to the Boy Scouts, and his refusal to amend the statement, make it clear that it was, and was intended to be interpreted as, a personal attack on individual Scouts. So I guess I will stay fucked back on.
As for the OP, the issue seems to be that one group consisting largely of pissy hysterics with an axe to grind is allowed to solicit funds, and a different group attacked by pissy hysterics with an axe to grind is not. Why, in other words, is PETA being treated better than the Boy Scouts?
Anyway, congratulations on your certificate from the lissener “Anyone Who Disagrees With Me In the Slightest Is a Bigotted Homophobe Who Can Suck My D*ck” School of Argumentation.