It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bring on the Gay Boy Scouts

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Hey look it's one of these threads again.

What's that flushing sound?

Oh it's the global economy still.




posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by KnawLick
God forbid we take the ethnicity question off application forms and just hire solely on qualification.



Which is what most large symphony orchestras do - "blind" auditions with the players behind a screen so that the selectors cannot see who they are.
Result - more women, and more asians. Actually, a lot more asians.

I propose a minority advancement scheme, that symphony orchestras should be forced against their will to accept a larger number of non-asian men, whether they be qualified or not.
The proposal sounds stupid even as I type it... and yet for every other industry, it is a rule.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


I think blind applications and interviews are a great idea.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Although sometimes sponsored by churches, scouting is also sponsored by other organizations and the church didn't start and doesn't own boy scouts. Churches volunteer to sponsor scouts.


The BSA operates traditional Scouting locally through units sponsored and operated by churches, clubs, civic associations, educational organizations and the like. Units are led entirely by volunteers who are supported by local councils using both paid professionals and volunteers.


They're not associated with the church. Source

reply to post by KnawLick
 



Originally posted by KnawLick
we can disallow this type of abhorrent marriage and you, in Maryland, can give all the rights to gays you deem fit!


People don't "give" rights to other people.
You in Virginia can DENY rights to certain groups. I wouldn't brag about supporting that...


Originally posted by KnawLick
I don't want my kids seeing homosexuals making out or any other nonsense for the same reason I don't want my daughter seeing prostitutes walking the streets.


Then put blinders on your kids. Prostitution is illegal. Showing affection is not. If you want to protect your kids from the TRUTH of life, then keep them behind closed doors.
edit on 6/11/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by KnawLick
 


White people can't handle it when they get a taste of their own medicine.

Then again, it is the 21st century.

Which means that there's little if any excuse for racial superiority.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


What is a "taste of our own medicine". I assume you want to retread the old arguments, "oh all white people owe black because of slavery" "oh well minorities are second class citizens"...

I have never owned a slave, I have never instituted any Jim Crow laws, shoot I even married a South American naturalized citizen.

What exactly did ANY white person living today do get a "taste of our own medicine"?
edit on 11-6-2012 by KnawLick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Really? How exactly is getting married a "right", the only ones I remember are life, liberty and property. I am very proud that my state doesn't cowtow to political correctness, in the same way I assume your proud your state embraces "tolerance". So who are you to judge exactly?

And your right, I was obviously being facetious, but the point still stands. We don't allow gay marriage for the same reason as we don't allow prostitution, their both immoral



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by bokonon2010

by Mary Elizabeth Williams, Salon
Posted on June 11, 2012

So you’re an organization that “builds character and trains [young people] in the responsibilities of participating citizenship.” Naturally, that means you practice institutionalized discrimination. Maybe it’s time to rethink a few things, Boy Scouts of America.

That the Boy Scouts refuse to offer membership to LGBT individuals is nothing new – they’ve been expressly prohibited from participating in the Scouts for over 20 years, on the grounds that “homosexual conduct is inconsistent with those values” the group wishes to instill. Since then, the right of the Scouts to be exclusionary has been thrashed about, tested and challenged, always unsuccessfully.

But though there are still miles to go before we attain anything like true equal rights, this business of shutting gay and lesbian people out of the stream of American life just isn’t as popular as it once was. So last year when Iowa resident (and Salon’s 2011 sexiest man) Zach Wahls spoke proudly about his two moms before his state’s legislative hearings to ban same-sex marriage — and about his status as an Eagle Scout — it struck a deep chord and renewed the debate. Wahls went on to form Scouts for Equality to “lead a respectful, honest dialogue with current and former Scouts and Scout Leaders about ending this outdated policy.”

And then Jennifer Tyrrell, “a devoted partner, mother, friend and community leader in Bridgeport, Ohio,” was dismissed as a Tiger Cub den leader for her son’s Cub Scout troop on the grounds of her orientation, or, as the Scouts told her, because she did “not meet the high standards of membership that the BSA seeks.” The high standards of being, you know, not so gay. A Change.org petition was born, and a resolution was placed before the Scouts to reappraise its standards.

The resolution has been seen by some as an encouraging sign of openness, but the organization has discouraged pulling out the rainbow flags just yet. Boy Scouts chief executive Robert Mazzuca told USA Today this week that “We have no plans at the moment to make any changes.” And in a public statement on its website, the Scouts make it clear that they have “no plans to change its membership policy. The introduction of a resolution does not indicate the organization is ‘reviewing’ a policy or signal a change in direction.” In other words, don’t hold your breath. It further adds, rather huffily, that “In April, a single individual submitted a resolution asking the Boy Scouts to consider amending its policy on not granting membership to open or avowed homosexuals.”

Right, the Scouts’ discriminatory policy is just the gripe of a “single individual” and not some two-decades-long battle. And come on, what do those shameless, wanton, avowed homosexuals expect anyway? With their openly being gay and all? Apparently it’s still OK with the Boy Scouts to be a homosexual, as long as you’re deeply closeted. You know, the kind of gay who doesn’t make people uncomfortable with his or her entire way of being.

Because the Scouts are a private organization – one of the largest in the nation, in fact – its long-held argument goes that it has the right to set its own criteria for membership. Which is a steaming pile of crap. The only reasonable criteria for any organization that purports to instill character is how your members behave, not who they are. That’s why this issue isn’t going away. That’s why, despite the Scouts’ insistent, repeated use of the phrase “no change,” change is exactly what needs to happen — and will. As Jennifer Tyrell told CNN this spring, the Boy Scouts are “about teaching children to be better adults. And we aren’t doing that by teaching them to hate or discriminate.”

www.alternet.org...

Why not to organize Gay Scouts or LGBT Scouts instead? Can they just leave alone US scouts boys and girls?


I quit reading it once I realized it was a female pretending to know what is best for the boy scouts. I agree with the op, start your own rainbow club and quit trying to hijack ours or the girls'.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by KnawLick
How exactly is getting married a "right", the only ones I remember are life, liberty and property.


So you don't consider voting a right, either? You think life, liberty and property are our only rights?

I'm sorry, I'm going to go have a discussion with someone who actually knows about the subject.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Well then by all means besides, attempting to belittle me, explain... What are our other rights? Where do these other rights come from? Is it possible for some of these rights to disappear?

Be specific not condescending. It looks ugly on you...
edit on 11-6-2012 by KnawLick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 





Namely, that advocates of homosexuality are incapable of responding rationally to dissenting opinions, but instead are unable to resist the urge to indulge in various forms of mockery and ad hominem, which are fueled by unrestrained, negative emotions, rather than logic.


Maybe it's because we are flabberghasted at the lengths you will go to justify your homophobia. you hate them cause they are icky, but won't admit that, so you've created some vast gay marxist conspiracy.

It deserves to be mocked.

That said, the scouts is a private group, so they can make whatever rules they want, personally, I don't dig discrimination in any form, but I'm not running a private group of boy scouts.

what I think is funny, sir, is that you think "the gays" should be happy with the fact that they can now be gay without the constant and direct threat of violence, but you draw the line at accepting them as fellow human beings with the same rights.

don't even pretend you are going to argue that, I've read your other threads.

honestly, if i was gay, I'd seek you out in real life and be as flamboyant as freaking possible just to make you uncomfortable. I really would.

"Let them have gay scouts"

honestly. You are an american, and you are preaching discrimination and segregation?

Maybe we should just build a big electrified fence around them right?

food for thought.

If you hate gay people so much, maybe you should start blaming the STRAIGHT COUPLES THAT KEEP HAVING GAY BABIES.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



There's no poing in stepping on the toes of religious folk for no reason. Most Christians would be very happy with civil unions I would think so long as they kept their marriage term to themselves.


If you don't mind my asking - seriously and politely - why is it up to the Christians?



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by KnawLick
 


To get married you need a license, which is supplied by (the state I assume, or is it federal?) making that union fall under government regulation. If you want the legal breaks afforded to married couples, you must get a marriage license.

Your constitution and founding documents make it clear that the government shall not discriminate.

By offering a government service, with tangible benefits, to only a portion of the population and denying others based solely on sexual orientation, goes against the very reason your country was founded.

Personally? I think the government shouldn't be involved in marriages at all. The best solution would be to remove them entirely from the process.

But alas, i must have been brainwashed by the gay mafia into believing all humans deserve the same shot in life, man, such a marxist idiot I am.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 





If you don't mind my asking - seriously and politely - why is it up to the Christians?


Because the "moral compass" of the US is the Christian Ideal. It's a load of crap, but there you go. Hence all of the people in here telling you how immoral it is to love someone of the same sex. It's only immoral according to their little pocket bible.

You know it's times like these I start to lose faith in people. I mean really, because of some half literate passage somewhere in there, people are that willing to remove someone elses rights because it makes them feel icky?

I tell you what, if I had a child, I'd want that child growing up in a world filled with love, of any kind. I'd want my child to know that love is love, and they are free to find it wherever they do, and that they should never constrain themselves into what they think society expects.

If we can't come to accept people that look like us, talk like us, live like us, and die like us, just because of who they are in love with, how do we ever expect the human race to last?



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


That argument could be applied to anything though. We also give tax breaks for hiring minorities and tax breaks for solar instead of gas...

The only "fair" solution is a "fair" tax but that will never happen.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 





If you don't mind my asking - seriously and politely - why is it up to the Christians?


Because the "moral compass" of the US is the Christian Ideal. It's a load of crap, but there you go. Hence all of the people in here telling you how immoral it is to love someone of the same sex. It's only immoral according to their little pocket bible.

You know it's times like these I start to lose faith in people. I mean really, because of some half literate passage somewhere in there, people are that willing to remove someone elses rights because it makes them feel icky?

I tell you what, if I had a child, I'd want that child growing up in a world filled with love, of any kind. I'd want my child to know that love is love, and they are free to find it wherever they do, and that they should never constrain themselves into what they think society expects.

If we can't come to accept people that look like us, talk like us, live like us, and die like us, just because of who they are in love with, how do we ever expect the human race to last?


Who appointed you the authority on morality. If somebody's morals come from a book are they less valid then your smug sense of superiority?



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by navy_vet_stg3

Hi Navy

I think you're right about that - it IS a private org. One 'den' of 'cubs' refused to allow Jews into their boy scout group in southern CA and the AFLCIO could not do anything about it. They allowed one black guy in though (well actually half black his mother was white and he passed, sort of, by 'sounding white' whater that means.

Another den back in the '60s didn't allow gentiles ('goyim') into their Eagle Scout group also in southern CA, only Ashkenazim (they even discriminated against the Sefardim, no joke) - but since they're private they can hate who they want to.

I wonder if a boyscout group ONLY wanted neo-skin-head Nazi's (or boys whose fathers or relatives were Nazi affiliated) would anyone be able to do ANYTHING about it - probably not.

Unless the BoyScouts USA has something to say about who gets in and who does not....

I guess if Leonardo or Michaelangelo Buonarotti wanted to join (not that persons of that callibre of mind would stoop so low) the Boy Scouts, they would not be allowed in - since, well, they both were interested in boys sexually (or at least very young men !) - don't forget ALL the PRONOUNS of the original erotic love poetry of Michaelangelo were deliberately changed by the printer (all the HIM's were changed to HER's etc. 40 years after his death) so that no one would ever know....

Oh well...


edit on 11-6-2012 by Sigismundus because: stuttering commmputerrrrrr



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


:-)

I'm with you

I'm still hoping tothetenthpower will reply to my honestly not hostile question

There is this idea that one group of people in this country gets to decide what everybody else can or can't do

I understand that the majority rules - this explains our history - up until now

But, things are changing. We see things differently now. The majority is changing

I want to live in a world just like the one you just described phishyblankwaters

things gets me down sometimes too - but then I see the changes and it gives me hope :-)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


:-)

I'm with you

I'm still hoping tothetenthpower will reply to my honestly not hostile question

There is this idea that one group of people in this country gets to decide what everybody else can or can't do

I understand that the majority rules - this explains our history - up until now

But, things are changing. We see things differently now. The majority is changing

I want to live in a world just like the one you just described phishyblankwaters

things gets me down sometimes too - but then I see the changes and it gives me hope :-)



I assume when you refer to TPTB, you mean somebody who doesn't agree with you. So I'll try. You are right, one group in society shouldn't decide what another group does. Soooo apply that same standard to your own philosophy. If 80% of Virginia is Christian and find gay marriage offensive, right or wrong, why force your ideology on them? In the same way you'd be mad if those same Christians came to Massachusetts and outlawed gay marriage.

Think, its wrong to impose the "rights" of 6% of the population on an 80% christian community then its also wrong to impose the beliefs of that christian community on atheists.

The problem I have with the "gay agenda" is there is no compromising with it. Support gay marriage or your a bigot. I say do whatever the heck you want in your state but don't shove it down our throats. In turn we should show the same respect...
edit on 11-6-2012 by KnawLick because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-6-2012 by KnawLick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 




I have no issues with the Scouts allowing gays. How about a compromise? Say the Boys or Girls scouts should offer "Gay troops" If one chooses to be open about their orientation at that stage of their life then why not?


Maybe we should have a compromise military too - the gay troops?

The Gay Marines? Would that work? Or, are there no gay marines?

:-)

Seriously Slayer - they're citizens...and, I also know you know that

But, it's not a compromise to have gay scout troops - it's just segregation

Anyway - they are still either boys or girls - and they are all kids. Kids should be allowed to be a scout without also having to deny what they are

I understand that the Scouts are a private organization and can do what they want. I just really wish they would want this

I think one day they probably will



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join