|
|
| Author |
Message |
bru
|
|
Boy Scouts Vs. Gays in New York
| 
Sep 28 14:24 UTC 2000 |
Okay, you liberals are really begining to scare me.
A school district in New York has voted to ban the schools from sponsoring
the Boy Scouts. The reason given is because they discriminate against gay
people. The Supreme Court said this is not descrimination.
So, is the school district not now disriminating against the Boy Scouts?
Are the 14 branches of the United Way that are refusing to give them funds
not discriminating?
The Boy Scouts, one of the least discriminatory organizations in the history
of the world, with scouts from every nation and every racial and every
religious belief possible out there, is now discriminatory because they
believe that Gay people are not proper role models and violate the scouting
laws.
The scouting organization is not banning them because they fear they will rape
boys on outings, but because they do not represent the right role model for
the kids in the organization. They have not advocated kicking any of the boys
out of the organization because they are experimenting with homosexual
feelings. They are not forbidding them membership unless they are activly
espousing the gay lifestyle. They would do the same if they found out someone
was a murderer, or if they were a burglar. or if they were a rapist, or if
they were a pedophile.
They do not accept this as a role model.
Now, I know you are going to say that these other lifestyles are criminal,
but being gay is not.
Does the murderer think his lifestyle is acceptable, probably, to him.
Does the rapist think his lifestyle is okay, probably.
Do the burglar or the pedophile believe their lifestyle should be acceptable?
probably.
I do not believe a murderer, or a rapist, or a burglar, or a pedophile, or
a gay person are an acceptable role model for our youth. Neither do the BOy
Scouts, and the supreme court sees nothing wrong with that.
Why do you? And why does this give you the right to discriminate against the
Boy Scouts?
|
| 174 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 1 of 174:
|
Sep 28 14:33 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
brighn
|
|
response 2 of 174:
|
Sep 28 14:44 UTC 2000 |
Better example, bru: Would the BSA be discriminatory if it barred scout
leaders from using alcohol or tobacco products? Not at all.
I agree with the SC. I also agree that, if the BSA can decide what consistutes
proper role modelling, and discriminate based on that, so can any organization
that does business with the BSA. If the BSA feels that being gay is poor role
modelling, so be it. If the United Way feels that using sexual orientation
as a means of discrimination is poor role modelling, so be it.
In other words, what jp2 said.
|
birdy
|
|
response 3 of 174:
|
Sep 28 14:51 UTC 2000 |
All of those other things do *harm* to people. Being gay doesn't harm people
unless he rapes them, and then he's a rapist.
A gay male can be an excellent role model. He obviously worked his way up in
the Boy Scout ranks, so he knows how to do all of the crafts, camping stuff,
and other things they earn badges for. Okay, so he doesn't sleep with women.
That's not part of what Boy Scouts learn, though. You don't get a badge for
sexuality. Therefore, it's irrelevant. They may learn that you respect and
love other people and practice chivalry or whatever...but I'm sure gay men are
capable of this, too. Oh wait...yes, they are...they're human.
If the Boy Scouts were a Christian organization, it would make more sense since
the Bible forbids homosexuality. But, they're not. Therefore, this is
completely stupid.
I don't know if I like the school banning support of the Boy Scouts since it's
a good organization, but I can see why they and the United Way wouldn't want to
support an organization that discriminates. You say they're discriminating by
not giving support, but I consider this a better reason than kicking out a
person who has proved their worth simply because that person is gay. If the
Boy Scouts weren't a volunteer organization, they'd never get away with this.
|
jazz
|
|
response 4 of 174:
|
Sep 28 14:53 UTC 2000 |
When you're talking about discrimination, you have to start with an
assumption that certain things are just a part of human nature and natural
variety, and aren't really significant differences when it comes to who a
person is.
If you don't see skin colour as being insignificant, then racism is
perfectly acceptable.
If you don't see homosexuality as being insignificant, than anti-gay
prejudice is perfectly acceptable.
Thus Bruce's confusion.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 5 of 174:
|
Sep 28 15:16 UTC 2000 |
Contrary to what #0 says, the Supreme Court did not say that that what
the Boy Scouts are doing is not discrimination, it said that the Boy
Scouts are a private organization and therefore can set whatever
membership standards they desire. And the schools and United Way and
whomever else certainly have the right to not associate with any private
group whose standards they find offensive.
And, by the way, lumping homosexuals in with burglars, murderers,
rapists, and pedophiles (why are gays always assumed to be pedophiles?)
is downright nasty.
|
jazz
|
|
response 6 of 174:
|
Sep 28 15:18 UTC 2000 |
Good point. Even lumping homosexuals in with those groups when
discussing, say, Biblical prohibitions is inappropriate, since burglars,
murderers and rapists are all breaking one of the Ten Commandments (someone
help me out here on pedophilia and Biblical prohibitions!)
|
scott
|
|
response 7 of 174:
|
Sep 28 15:23 UTC 2000 |
Right. The issue is whether govt. tax money (via school sponsorship) would
be spend on the BSA.
|
birdy
|
|
response 8 of 174:
|
Sep 28 16:23 UTC 2000 |
(Jazz - pedophilia could go under "coveting" in a strange way)
|
jazz
|
|
response 9 of 174:
|
Sep 28 16:24 UTC 2000 |
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's underage daughter?
|
bru
|
|
response 10 of 174:
|
Sep 28 16:30 UTC 2000 |
I didn't say they were pedophiles, I said a pedophile might think his
choice was acceptable. And the boy Scouts are a private organization, the
School district isn't.
|
birdy
|
|
response 11 of 174:
|
Sep 28 17:03 UTC 2000 |
So? The school district can still decide which private organizations they
want to support.
|
brighn
|
|
response 12 of 174:
|
Sep 28 17:14 UTC 2000 |
there aren't any particular prohibitions on pedophilia.
Quite the opposite. In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, when the angels
visited and the masses wanted to rape them, Lot offered his daughters as a
compromise. The masses didn't take it. Later, after Sodom and Gomorrah burned
and Lot's wife took a sodium overdose, Lot's daughters got him drunk and raped
HIM, impregnating themselves and repopulating their neck of the woods that
way.
So, actually, biblically speaking, incest and pedophilia are more acceptable
than homosexuality.
|
mary
|
|
response 13 of 174:
|
Sep 28 17:18 UTC 2000 |
When my son was at the right age to join the Boy Scouts we did indeed go
to an organizational meeting. He was told that reading the pledge (which
refers to God) and following the goals of the organization (again, much of
it God based) is mandatory. One could not opt out of the God parts, and
simply be silent. His friends joined but he did not, his choice.
He was fine with this.
The troop met in his public school but BSA paid rent for use of the space.
Other groups, like the Korean Saturday school had the same arrangement,
paying rent for use of the space. No public support was involved but I do
think this rental arrangement probably did meet with some discrimination.
I doubt a group of young KKK children would have been extended the same
agreement.
If the Boy Scouts don't want homosexual leaders then that's just fine by
me. But I wonder how many little scouts go to Mass each Sunday and are
mentored by gay priests. I'd suspect there is a far higher ratio of gay
to straight priests than there are Boy Scout leaders. But don't tell the
phobic parents - they don't want to know.
|
mary
|
|
response 14 of 174:
|
Sep 28 17:21 UTC 2000 |
s/are Boy Scout leaders/are gay to straight Boy Scout leaders
|
brighn
|
|
response 15 of 174:
|
Sep 28 17:50 UTC 2000 |
As a side note, somebody mentioned something about "working one's way up
through the ranks" to become a BSA troup leader.
Dunno about the Boy Scouts, but most Cub Scout troop leaders are moms. I'm
not sure there's a requirement that one was a high-ranking Boy Scout (or a
Boy Scout at all) to become a troop leader.
|
scott
|
|
response 16 of 174:
|
Sep 28 18:20 UTC 2000 |
(FWIW... in my Boy Scout troop one of the best leaders turned out to be (many
years later) gay. The only incident with an inappropriate encounter with with
one of the boys was committed by one of the fathers, an ostensibly "normal"
person)
|
jerryr
|
|
response 17 of 174:
|
Sep 28 18:22 UTC 2000 |
lemmie see... the supremes are totally wrong about the second ammendment but
totally correct about the bsa? hmmmmmm.....
i had a gay bs leader. he was sleeping with one of the explorers in my post.
he was discovered and busted. none of us were traumatized by this. we met
in a church basement, btw.
|
birdy
|
|
response 18 of 174:
|
Sep 28 19:08 UTC 2000 |
Brighn - that was me. I know he was an Eagle or something, and you have to
work your way up to that.
|
flem
|
|
response 19 of 174:
|
Sep 28 19:22 UTC 2000 |
re resp:15 -- No experience as a scout is needed to become a boy scout
leader, but having been a high ranking scout virtually ensures that they'll
accept you as a leader. Unless, of course, you're gay. :)
|
brighn
|
|
response 20 of 174:
|
Sep 28 19:43 UTC 2000 |
Yeah, you have to work up to be an Eagle, but "troop leader" is the adult
popsition, isn't it? Regardless of his experience, I don't think you need to
have been a boy scout at all to lead a troop.
Popsition... what a typo. ;}
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 21 of 174:
|
Sep 28 20:05 UTC 2000 |
Hm. . .I was a girl scout for all of two days. The trauma I endured
had nothing to with whether my troop leaders were gay or not, but the
songs I had to sing, and those god-awful badges. . .and visions of
poorly prepared campfood. Blech!
Speaking of Pedophilia (boy, isn't THAT a subject you want to bring up
on a group outing, and WHAT A SEGUE!), children were married much MUCH
younger than wer are now (DUH, right), so the notion of sexual
intercourse with younger children (esp. girls of course) wasn't quite
as taboo. Of course, even they had their limits back them, I'm sure.
|
ashke
|
|
response 22 of 174:
|
Sep 28 21:19 UTC 2000 |
Agreed. My dad was a troup leader for my brother's troup, and my mom a "Den
Mother", so no, you don't have to have previous experience to be an adult
leader. Just like in Girl Scouts, the parents were voulenteers, rather than
previous scouts.
I don't think the sexuality issues is a point at all. If you don't want to
worry about boy scouts going out and raping little girls, then why would you
expect them to do it if they were boys and gay? It's the pot calling the
kettle black, but only because you haven't been washed lately, not because
you are truly soiled.
|
brighn
|
|
response 23 of 174:
|
Sep 28 21:41 UTC 2000 |
I honestly don't think anyone in the BSA seriously believes that gay men rape
little boys on a regular basis. That's bru. ;}
The BSA is concerned that homosexuality is a Christian sin, and feel that the
morality on which the BSA is founded is intimately related to Christian
morality. Likewise, the BSA would be more willing to tolerate a Pagan scout
leader who was willing to take a Unitarian stance than an atheist scout leader
(although I doubt they'd be pleased with either -- I recall them banning an
atheist boy scout for refusing to pledge under God, as Mary suggests).
Regardless of its name, the BSA is and has always been an ecumenical
organization with some degree of emphasis on Christian values. Homoesuxality
is a sin, according to many Christians. So homosexuals are unwelcome as role
models. Simple.
If I had a child of Boy Scout age, and there were a boy's organization like
BSA whose local leader was a hard-driving alcoholic, I'd be loath to let my
son join the group. I can see the reasoning. Just because *I* don't happen
to think that gay men make poor role models, I can empathize with that
position. The BSA's stance does not requiring thinking anything about
homosexuality or homosexuals beyond "God said it was bad."
As already stated, the Supreme Court ruled that, as a private organization
with an emphasis on moral development, the BSA is free to set moral criteria
for selecting or rejecting leadership. And if you don't agree, you're welcome
to avoid the BSA (as Mary describes). Difference of opinion. Life goes on.
|
tod
|
|
response 24 of 174:
|
Sep 28 22:56 UTC 2000 |
My mom was a Den Mother for our Cub Scout Troop. I don't remember
anythint Xtian happening. If anything, there was just alot of stupid
American Indian stereotyping in the rituals. And for sure, there
was a fag amongst the group and no one gave a shit.
I don't know what the big deal is other than a bunch of wimp ass Boy Scout
parents are afraid of their kids getting confused and mistakenly ass fucking
each other or some other stupid horse shit. Those parents should be
mailed to the 700 Club studios for a few episodes and leave alone the
little organizations that try to happen without the political posturing
of the 90's and 2000. No one cares if you are a fag or black or make
minimum wage, so stop trying to wave that banner. And no one gives a shit
if you're a parent that's afraid of your kid being gay or wanting
to wear dresses. Fer crying out loud, it's a kid club. Not a brain washing
session. Leave it alone and let the kids have some organized fun.
I wish all those uptight parents would leave their posturing at the
door and let ALL the kids get along, and let ALL the parents get
involved.
That whole anti-gay thing is stupid and destructive. Those parents will
go to their graves with some hate on their shoulders for a dumb reason.
|