Who is in the Wrong Here?

[WyldCard4]

For some time at my Church (Unitarian Universalism) there has been a low key debate over Scouting, Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts.

Some vocal homosexual members argue that because of Scouting's anti homosexual policies it is offensive to honor or recognize Scouting in the church, others (my family leads this group) argue that it is a wonderful organization in spite of its policies.

The primary opposite of our viewpoint does have legitimate grievances against Scouting while my mother leads a Scout Troop.

This is only really a problem because my mom leads the Religious Education program and had a thing about Scouting without knowing it would offend people.

So who is in the right here?

Is it wrong to respect Scouting because if its policies and is it offensive to bring it up?

[Jack Zodiac]

It isn't wrong, but, like, I wouldn't give 'em money or anything. The kids, they don't know what their organization's policies are about, but most of the adults probably do, and the decent ones, they don't give a shit and they'll let whoever the hell they want in their troops. The douchefaces at the top, though... fuck them.

So, anyway, yeah... I wouldn't give a crap if they were using my church, so long as they weren't takin' anything away from the church itself. Time, money, or whatever. Just an empty room, some chairs, and electricity.

[Paul McEnery]

Gee, I dunno. How would you feel if Scouting discriminated against blacks?

There's nothing wrong with Scouting in general. But as long as they discriminate, there's something seriously wrong with the leadership. If your local troop doesn't discriminate, then there's no real problem locally, as far as I can see.

Though personally, even if the local troop isn't discriminatory, I'd want to see them actively campaigning against the discrimination before I'd give them house room.

[WyldCard4]

Gee, I dunno. How would you feel if Scouting discriminated against blacks?

There's nothing wrong with Scouting in general. But as long as they discriminate, there's something seriously wrong with the leadership. If your local troop doesn't discriminate, then there's no real problem locally, as far as I can see.

Though personally, even if the local troop isn't discriminatory, I'd want to see them actively campaigning against the discrimination before I'd give them house room.

They aren't housed there.

[Valmore]

I see this ending in fire...

[Paul McEnery]

They aren't housed there.

"House room" is a phrase meaning "allow them in my house"; as in, recognize them or allow them to use church facilities.

As I understand it, organizations that discriminate are forbidden to use public space in the provision of the state. It seems to me that that would be good church policy, though again I would distinguish between the local branch of the scouts and the national (is it?) leadership.

[WyldCard4]

They are not housed in the Church and do not seek to be, our Troop is don't ask don't tell but we can't really say that and stay in the BSA.

We do not use the church space, it was a matter of recognizing them not giving them anything or helping them.

[Matt Algren]

They are not housed in the Church and do not seek to be, our Troop is don't ask don't tell but we can't really say that and stay in the BSA.

We do not use the church space, it was a matter of recognizing them not giving them anything or helping them.
So if a Scoutmaster told you he was gay you'd drum him out?

Tomato, Tomato.

[thespianphryne]

I see this ending in fire...

for destruction ice is also great

[Acecool]

A friend of mine once made an argument that all Republicans and anyone that signs on with them are bad people.

It went like this.

Discrimination for the purposes of hurting a group is bad.

Any group that has a written tenant of discrimination as such is bad.

All people who sign on to that group are bad people.

The republicans in there platform are anti gay, so therefore all Republicans are bad.

The same could be said about the boy scouts.

The point is that there are certain things that should trump all the good a group has done.

[K'Nort]

This was an issue with the United Way about ten years ago. Whether they should drop BSA from their list of financially-supported groups. They eventually chose not to. Subsequently, a lot of businesses in Portland OR (and I assume elsewhere) stopped supporting United Way through employee paycheck deductions and such.

My understanding is that many troops look the other way where national policy is concerned, so I would personally react on a strictly local case-by-case basis. But I certainly wouldn't have anything to do with a local group that supported the official party line.

[Winslow]

So who is in the right here?

Is it wrong to respect Scouting because if its policies and is it offensive to bring it up?

Seems like it's a subjective disagreement that has no practical application. Just have your Mom stop talking about scouts with her friends from church.

My answer to the question you posed is an obvious No to those that know me. I'm an Assistant Scoutmaster. I'm also on our local District Staff.

I do think the National scouting policy is flawed, and needs to be amended. It should be up to local groups and charters how to handle this issue.

[Super Hero Guy]

Well, why WOULD you want gays in the boy scouts?

[Matt Algren]

Well, why WOULD you want gays in the boy scouts?
Why wouldn't you?

[Paul McEnery]

Well, why WOULD you want gays in the boy scouts?

Teach them to tie a decent running knot, for a start.

[Paul McEnery]

for destruction ice is also great

But not so good for toasting marshmallows.

[DoctorDoom]

Teach them to tie a decent running knot, for a start.
There is that.

[darkhanamaru]

Well, why WOULD you want gays in the boy scouts?

Hell, the best boy scout troop in NYC's leaders for a long time were all closeted gays. Why? They had the time to go on the trips since they weren't married and didn't have kids of their own; plus, they were outstanding members of their episcopalian community so they were asked to do it. What they did together when the boys weren't round was an added bonus.

of course, they all abandoned scouting later because of the discrimination. i, for one, would not let my kid be a scout for looking the other way is not ok.

[Paul McEnery]

Hell, the best boy scout troop in NYC's leaders for a long time were all closeted gays. Why? They had the time to go on the tips since they weren't married and didn't have kids of their own and they were outstanding members of their episcopalian community so they were asked to do it. What they did together when the boys weren't round was an added bonus.

of course, they all abandoned scouting later because of the discrimination. i, for one, would not let my kid be a scout for looking the other way is not ok.

Yeah, that's the big one. Scouting is supposed to be all about teaching ethical standards. I understand it's a big leap for some people to realize that gay not equals immoral, and hating gays not equals moral, but that's just all the more reason to make a stink about it. Otherwise you're just teaching kids that the best way to deal with a fucked-up situation is to shut up and keep your head down. And there's way too much of that as it is.

[Acecool]

Why not start your own local organization?

[Sean Whitmore]

Well, why WOULD you want gays in the boy scouts?

Are you kidding?

Have you SEEN their uniforms?

They are in desperate need of some flair. STAT.


SEAN

[jobies201]

Alright, I tried to avoid this thread but it is inevitable. I've been highly involved in Scouts for years. Girls are not allowed in Boy Scouts for the same reason gay people aren't. It's not gay bashing, it's the fact that things would inevitably happen that Council doesn't want to be involved in.

In the course of my (almost) decade and a half in Scouting I have never heard anyone say anything bad about gay people in Scouts, or seen a case where a boy was found out to be gay and discriminated against. But if things like rape or even just normal sex were to happen in a Troop they would get in a lot of trouble, and there's nothing wrong with wanting to stay out of trouble.

[Gilda Dent]

Alright, I tried to avoid this thread but it is inevitable. I've been highly involved in Scouts for years. Girls are not allowed in Boy Scouts for the same reason gay people aren't. It's not gay bashing, it's the fact that things would inevitably happen that Council doesn't want to be involved in.

Just to make sure that I'm clear on what you're saying here, what, specifically are the things that "would inevitably happen" that the Boy Scouts don't want to be involved in?

I was a Campfire co-leader for several years. We had mixed-sex troops and gays, and this never had any negative effect that I noticed.

In the course of my (almost) decade and a half in Scouting I have never heard anyone say anything bad about gay people in Scouts, or seen a case where a boy was found out to be gay and discriminated against. But if things like rape or even just normal sex were to happen in a Troop they would get in a lot of trouble, and there's nothing wrong with wanting to stay out of trouble.

Just to clarify, again, are you saying that if gays are allowed in the Boy Scouts, this would increase the likelihood of rape?

-----------

In response to the OP, my wife and I attend a UUA church, and it's never come up, but I would be in opposition to supporting, financially or vocally or through the use of facilities, any organization with a stated policy of discrimination against gays and atheists.

[josephrey]

the word 'ethics' i feel shouldn't be brought into this. otherwise, this'll turn into (and it seems to be on its way) just another argument about what one feels comfortable with (as life experiences thus far have dictated).

it's great that there are homosexual members in your church, so definitely respect their friendship by heavily weighing all the pros and cons. is making them feel unwelcome worth the few months of scouting it takes before the kid gets bored?

;)


what do you mean by recognize? i'm not clear on that.



as mr. cool said, you could also start your own thing. maybe the priest could lead the boys on a hike?

[Sean Whitmore]

But if things like rape or even just normal sex were to happen in a Troop they would get in a lot of trouble, and there's nothing wrong with wanting to stay out of trouble.


Y'know what would completely do away with the possibility of child rape? Getting rid of all the damn children.

Just let the scoutmasters go into the woods, build a fire, shoot some arrows and go home. They can't stay out of trouble any more than that.


SEAN

[Sir Tim Drake]

Alright, I tried to avoid this thread but it is inevitable. I've been highly involved in Scouts for years. Girls are not allowed in Boy Scouts for the same reason gay people aren't. It's not gay bashing, it's the fact that things would inevitably happen that Council doesn't want to be involved in.

In the course of my (almost) decade and a half in Scouting I have never heard anyone say anything bad about gay people in Scouts, or seen a case where a boy was found out to be gay and discriminated against. But if things like rape or even just normal sex were to happen in a Troop they would get in a lot of trouble, and there's nothing wrong with wanting to stay out of trouble.

I have serious difficulty with your argument that if gay people were allowed to be Boy Scouts, this would inevitably lead to rape. Why is it inevitable that this would happen?

Also, why is it necessary to exclude gay people for the purpose of preventing rape, when we already have laws in place for the purpose of preventing rape?

[josephrey]

I have serious difficulty with your argument that if gay people were allowed to be Boy Scouts, this would inevitably lead to rape. Why is it inevitable that this would happen?

Also, why is it necessary to exclude gay people for the purpose of preventing rape, when we already have laws in place for the purpose of preventing rape?



i think you guys are misreading him. i believe he means that if a gay male were to go on a trip, the hetero boys would rape HIM to prove they aren't gay.

[Gilda Dent]

i think you guys are misreading him. i believe he means that if a gay male were to go on a trip, the hetero boys would rape HIM to prove they aren't gay.

Um . . . what?

[Winslow]

Alright, I tried to avoid this thread but it is inevitable. I've been highly involved in Scouts for years. Girls are not allowed in Boy Scouts for the same reason gay people aren't. It's not gay bashing, it's the fact that things would inevitably happen that Council doesn't want to be involved in.

This isn't really accurate.

The Boys Scouts don't allow girls because of the unique benefits of a same sex program. Similar to a school for boys (or conversely a school for girls).

Boy Scouts prohibit avowed adult homosexuals from positions in leadership because of the religious roots of the movement, and the traditional religoius objection regarding the morality of homosexuality.

The policy is functionally a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

BTW, there is no national policy regarding gay boy scouts. The policy is not supposed to be enforced with the boys.

In the course of my (almost) decade and a half in Scouting I have never heard anyone say anything bad about gay people in Scouts, or seen a case where a boy was found out to be gay and discriminated against.

Me either. I'm an Eagle Scout with 6+ years of Scouter experience.

But if things like rape or even just normal sex were to happen in a Troop they would get in a lot of trouble, and there's nothing wrong with wanting to stay out of trouble.

I think you're too focused on the sexual aspects of this.

[Winslow]

Um . . . what?

It was an attempt at humor.

Rape humor is always so hilarious. HA . . . HA . . .

[Gilda Dent]

It was an attempt at humor.

Rape humor is always so hilarious. HA . . . HA . . .

Thank you for the explanation.

[Sean Whitmore]

It was an attempt at humor.

Rape humor is always so hilarious. HA . . . HA . . .

It can be.

This wasn't, but I've heard some Sue Dibney hum-dingers.


SEAN

[Samurai]

As an agnostic, I'm one of those people the scouts would not be too happy to have in their group, but I think scouting is a good program that helps kids stay out of trouble and teaches them good morals, values, and skills. I've attended several boyscout fund raiser dinners.

I think they should be more open-minded about letting in atheists and agnostics, but that doesn't mean they don't do a lot of good even as they are.

[Gilda Dent]

I'd just like to point out that scouting /= the Boy Scouts. There are other scouting organizations, and being involved in scouting does not limit one to that one organization.

[Asa]

I have a small girl scout troop, regardless of weather they are gay males or females, there is no tollorance of any sexual behavior. To protect girls, we leaders must take the appropriate measures to ensure their saftey. By enforcing the adult to girl ratio, expecaily when it comes to overnights. no 1 adult may sleep in the same tent with 1 or 2 girls. Were else would there be an issue?, do they think these gay men are going to hurt these boys?

[Winslow]

As an agnostic, I'm one of those people the scouts would not be too happy to have in their group, but I think scouting is a good program that helps kids stay out of trouble and teaches them good morals, values, and skills. I've attended several boyscout fund raiser dinners.

I think they should be more open-minded about letting in atheists and agnostics, but that doesn't mean they don't do a lot of good even as they are.

You can join as long as you don't have a problem with taking an oath to do your duty to God.

God can be whatever you use to inform your moral compass, and your intention to abide by it.

[Winslow]

I'd just like to point out that scouting /= the Boy Scouts. There are other scouting organizations, and being involved in scouting does not limit one to that one organization.

You are correct.

Sometimes those of us within the movement shorten boy scouts to scouting, but it can be confusing in a public message board to use the broad terminology.

[kmeyers]

Alright, I tried to avoid this thread but it is inevitable. I've been highly involved in Scouts for years. Girls are not allowed in Boy Scouts for the same reason gay people aren't. It's not gay bashing, it's the fact that things would inevitably happen that Council doesn't want to be involved in.

In the course of my (almost) decade and a half in Scouting I have never heard anyone say anything bad about gay people in Scouts, or seen a case where a boy was found out to be gay and discriminated against. But if things like rape or even just normal sex were to happen in a Troop they would get in a lot of trouble, and there's nothing wrong with wanting to stay out of trouble.

I think the main problem comes from ignorant people confusing homosexuality with pedophilia.

Just because a person is gay does not mean they are automatically a pedophile, or even more likely to be a pedophile than any straight person.

[JeffreyWKramer]

The BSA is a group that openly engages in discrimination based on religion and based on sexual orientation. As a private agency, they have every right to do that, but given those stances, they should get absolutely no public funding of any sort. The fact that they do some good doesn't change the fact that their official policies are bigoted ones. Thankfully, not all of the local groups follow those policies, but as long as they are part of the BSA, they continue to be part of the problem. I have some sympathy for their desire to work within the organization to change the policies, but I think the best way to actually make that happen would be for the groups of more conscience to leave the national organization en masse, leaving the BSA brass to decide whether the organization as a whole is going to change or fade into increasing irrelevance and obscurity.

As to whether or not it's right for someone to support them, I guess that depends on whether or not one thinks it's okay to support groups that engage in bigotry and sexual and religious discrimination.

[JeffreyWKramer]

You can join as long as you don't have a problem with taking an oath to do your duty to God.

God can be whatever you use to inform your moral compass, and your intention to abide by it.

So, in other words, you can join if you're not a believer, but are willing to be a hypocrite and take an oath to something in which you don't beleive in order to be one of the crowd.

Gee, I thought honestly and integrity were among those values scouting was supposed to encourage.

[Charles RB]

But if things like rape or even just normal sex were to happen in a Troop they would get in a lot of trouble

Yes, they would.

And you won't prevent rape occuring in a troop by banning homosexuals, because they're not sexually attracted to children. Paedophiles are the ones attracted to children, and what stops them joining the Scouts without telling anyone they're attracted to children?

[Valmore]

So, in other words, you can join if you're not a believer, but are willing to be a hypocrite and take an oath to something in which you don't beleive in order to be one of the crowd.

Gee, I thought honestly and integrity were among those values scouting was supposed to encourage.

Why would an atheist or an agnostic want their child to join a group that explicitly puts God in their program in the first place?

[kmeyers]

So, in other words, you can join if you're not a believer, but are willing to be a hypocrite and take an oath to something in which you don't beleive in order to be one of the crowd.

Gee, I thought honestly and integrity were among those values scouting was supposed to encourage.

I'm pretty sure he was making the point that ANY form of God was acceptable, not just Christianity.

And it's not like they are forcing people to become scout masters against their will. You don't agree with the oath, don't be a scout.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Why would an atheist or an agnostic want their child to join a group that explicitly puts God in their program in the first place?

They presumably wouldn't be interested in that aspect of the organization, but might be interested in some of the other things involved in scouting, and while yes, there are other scouting organizations out there, they aren't nearly as prevalent as the BSA, and are nowhere close to universally available.

I know a lot of folk that did scouting when they were young and found it a good experience, but won't support the organization now due to the BSA's continued backward, prejudicial stance. I expect that's only going to be more and more the norm with time.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I'm pretty sure he was making the point that ANY form of God was acceptable, not just Christianity.

Since he was specifically responding to the issue of the Scouts' stance regarding athiesm and agnosticism, the fact that they are okay with other religious folk is rather irrelevant. The issue in the response in question is that a person that doesn't believe in God can still be a member, so long as they're willing to take an oath to some form of God, which would still be hypocritical to someone who is an athiest or agnostic.

And it's not like they are forcing people to become scout masters against their will. You don't agree with the oath, don't be a scout.

They don't force anyone, of course, but the oaths aren't just required of scout masters.

[kmeyers]

Since he was specifically responding to the issue of the Scouts' stance regarding athiesm and agnosticism, the fact that they are okay with other religious folk is rather irrelevant. The issue in the response in question is that a person that doesn't believe in God can still be a member, so long as they're willing to take an oath to some form of God, which would still be hypocritical to someone who is an athiest or agnostic.
Well, that says more about the person who is willing to compromise their beliefs, doesn't it?

Don't believe in it? Why be a part of it?
They don't force anyone, of course, but the oaths aren't just required of scout masters.

So?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Well, that says more about the person who is willing to compromise their beliefs, doesn't it?

Don't believe in it? Why be a part of it?

Potentially so. However, Winslow's point more or less comes down to "We don't care what people really believe, just what they're willing to take an oath to", which is pretty hypocritical itself.

So?

So, it's rather douchebaggy for an organization that supposedly encourages values to put kids, who are very vulnerable to peer pressure, in the situation of having to take an oath to something they might not believe, or to hide who they really are, in order to be part of the club.

And again, the BSA has every right to do that. But, people of conscience also have every right to consider them a bunch of backwards douchebags for their doing that.

[Gilda Dent]

Well, that says more about the person who is willing to compromise their beliefs, doesn't it?

Don't believe in it? Why be a part of it?

There's all that other stuff, camping and wilderness skills, learning to do things with your hands, socializing with others interested in such things, learning the value of hard work, developing positive relationships with good adult role models, etc.

Those are all things that people might want to be a part of have their children be a part of, and the BSA is the largest organization that provides wilderness training skills for boys in the United States.

[kmeyers]

Potentially so. However, Winslow's point more or less comes down to "We don't care what people really believe, just what they're willing to take an oath to", which is pretty hypocritical itself.
Well, that's your take on it, but I took it more as, "We'll take your word for it." Why would they operate under the assumption that these people are likely to lie about what they believe in?

So, it's rather douchebaggy for an organization that supposedly encourages values to put kids, who are very vulnerable to peer pressure, in the situation of having to take an oath to something they might not believe, or to hide who they really are, in order to be part of the club.

I really don't think it's a big deal. Millions of kids had to say the Pledge of Allegiance daily(myself included), and it meant nothing to me as a kid.

And again, the BSA has every right to do that. But, people of conscience also have every right to consider them a bunch of backwards douchebags for their doing that.
If someone is so against it, then don't put your kid in scouts.

[kmeyers]

There's all that other stuff, camping and wilderness skills, learning to do things with your hands, socializing with others interested in such things, learning the value of hard work, developing positive relationships with good adult role models, etc.

Those are all things that people might want to be a part of have their children be a part of, and the BSA is the largest organization that provides wilderness training skills for boys in the United States.

Sure it may be the biggest, but there are other organizations. Even if there isn't some organization available in your area, it's not like the BSA has a monopoly on camping, and wilderness skill training.

If you're a health food enthusiast, you don't go to the local grocery store, you go to the nearest health food store. Maybe it's kind of far to drive, because there are many more Grocery stores in your area, but if it means that much to you, you'll drive that extra few miles to shop at the health food store.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I really don't think it's a big deal. Millions of kids had to say the Pledge of Allegiance daily(myself included), and it meant nothing to me as a kid.
I think the Pledge is a retarded idea, too, for a lot of reasons, one of them being that it's pretty stupid to have kids take pledges or oaths when they aren't even old enough to understand the concept. Taking an oath should mean something.

If someone is so against it, then don't put your kid in scouts.

Certainly that's one option, but I think it's also fine for people who care about the scouts to want them to change, and for people in general to dislike bigoted organizations.

[Gilda Dent]

Sure it may be the biggest, but there are other organizations. Even if there isn't some organization available in your area, it's not like the BSA has a monopoly on camping, and wilderness skill training.

If you're a health food enthusiast, you don't go to the local grocery store, you go to the nearest health food store. Maybe it's kind of far to drive, because there are many more Grocery stores in your area, but if it means that much to you, you'll drive that extra few miles to shop at the health food store.

Your question was "Don't believe it? Why be a part of it?"

I was providing reasons why an atheist/agnostic boy or his parents might want him to be involved with the Boy Scouts, an organization whose primary purpose isn't religious instruction but nature skills and values education.

On a personal level I would take the approach you suggest and find an alternate organization for my son if I had one (I'm cool with the Girl Scouts for a daughter; I'd prefer Camp Fire, but alas, none near here) and if there were an alternative available, but I can understand why gays and atheists/agnostics wouldn't want to do the same.

[kmeyers]

I think the Pledge is a retarded idea, too, for a lot of reasons, one of them being that it's pretty stupid to have kids take pledges or oaths when they aren't even old enough to understand the concept. Taking an oath should mean something.

It's definitely a pointless thing to do, that was pretty much my point. I said the Pledge all the time before school started, and I never felt the urge to join the military because of it.

Of course an oath should mean something, but does it really? Things change. How many people pledged an oath to their spouse, yet still got divorced?

Certainly that's one option, but I think it's also fine for people who care about the scouts to want them to change, and for people in general to dislike bigoted organizations.

I'm pretty sure noone was saying that you can't disagree with their policies.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Of course an oath should mean something, but does it really? Things change. How many people pledged an oath to their spouse, yet still got divorced?

Good question.

Here's another one... is it possible that pushing kids into making meaningless oaths is one factor contributing to people taking oaths and commitments less seriously?

I certainly don't think something like the Pledge is completely responsible for such trends, of course, but I also don't think anything good comes out of having kids do something that essentially teaches kids that pledges and oaths are empty and pointless.

[kmeyers]

Good question.

Here's another one... is it possible that pushing kids into making meaningless oaths is one factor contributing to people taking oaths and commitments less seriously?
Of course it's possible, anything is possible. I just don't think it's very likely.

Kids see lack of commitment everywhere, it's not exclusive to the BSA.

I certainly don't think something like the Pledge is completely responsible for such trends, of course, but I also don't think anything good comes out of having kids do something that essentially teaches kids that pledges and oaths are empty and pointless.
I don't think things like the Pledge are responsible at all. The parents are. That's where it begins, and ends to me. If a kid's parents take him to scouts, and take him to church every Sunday, he's going to hear way more about religion from his parents, than from the Boy Scouts of America.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Of course it's possible, anything is possible. I just don't think it's very likely.

Kids see lack of commitment everywhere, it's not exclusive to the BSA.
I wasn't really even talking about the BSA in regard to that point. I was referring to the Pledge of Allegiance, which is much more pervasive across our society.


I don't think things like the Pledge are responsible at all. The parents are. That's where it begins, and ends to me.

Parents aren't the only influence on kids. Once kids start going to school, they aren't even the major one. Developmentally, by age 8 kids are much more influenced by peer relationships and bigger societal trends than they are family.

Which is one reason why it's a bad thing to model bigotry to kids of scouting age.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I do think the National scouting policy is flawed, and needs to be amended. It should be up to local groups and charters how to handle this issue.

'this issue'?

You don't think a flat no-discrimination policy would be best?

[Valmore]

It seems that a lot of outrage tends to swell in direct proportion to how cool something is percieved as.

For instance, Augusta National. It's a private golf course, and as such it has a tradition of not allowing females to buy memberships. Females CAN play as a guest of a member, which only tallies about 300 and costs around $25,000. It's a damned cool and expensive thing to be a member, or so I'd imagine. Then NOW decided to protest in 2002 because of that policy.

But as far as I know of, I can't walk into a Curves for Women Fitness Club and get a membership - it's a private club that doesn't allow men in. Where's the outrage? Well, maybe it's just not seen as cool for men to join a gym club with 30-to-40-plus soccer moms.

That said, Scouting can be cool. Camping, hiking, and other activities are very appealing, as well as comraderie. But they are a private group that has a policy of not allowing gay leaders as well as basically having a heavy religion bent. They're also the largest group out there.

It's up to the public to how they recieve the scouts, since they do a lot of things in public, as do many private groups.

[BoosterBronze]

removed for redundancy

[BoosterBronze]

Here's another one... is it possible that pushing kids into making meaningless oaths is one factor contributing to people taking oaths and commitments less seriously?


Slightly off topic, but I think when lil' kids wear graduation robes and 'graduate' from pre-school, elementray school, and middle school, it makes real graduation less meaningful, and leads to more high school drop outs.

[Charles RB]

You don't think a flat no-discrimination policy would be best?

Then people would moan about top-down bureacratic centralisation or something.

[BoosterBronze]

Discrimination for the purposes of hurting a group is bad.
Any group that has a written tenant of discrimination as such is bad.
All people who sign on to that group are bad people.
The republicans in there platform are anti gay, so therefore all Republicans are bad.
The same could be said about the boy scouts.
The point is that there are certain things that should trump all the good a group has done.

I think your friends argument is almost painful in its oversimplification. I don't recall anything in the Republican platform that says 'we are anti-gay.'

If he means something more aking to 'The Repubican Party is anti-gay-marriage' then that's more true, but that seems to me an issue that people of good concsience may still disagree about.

It seems more to me that your friends argument is 'people who disagree with me are bad.'

I think the BSA's stance on homosexuality and religion is regretable, but as has been said before on this thread they are completely in their rights. Would you really say that a voluntary organization only having as members people who agree with the organizations foundation, counts as so bad as to trump all other things it does?

Would you apply the same standard to a Catholic Church's Married Man Bible Study organization that feeds the homeless? It's only open to married Catholic men who want to study the Bible. Jewish women aren't invited to join. Does that trump their food drives and make them a bad organization?

[Matt Algren]

Alright, I tried to avoid this thread but it is inevitable. I've been highly involved in Scouts for years. Girls are not allowed in Boy Scouts for the same reason gay people aren't. It's not gay bashing, it's the fact that things would inevitably happen that Council doesn't want to be involved in.

In the course of my (almost) decade and a half in Scouting I have never heard anyone say anything bad about gay people in Scouts, or seen a case where a boy was found out to be gay and discriminated against. But if things like rape or even just normal sex were to happen in a Troop they would get in a lot of trouble, and there's nothing wrong with wanting to stay out of trouble.
As someone else (Winslow?) said, there is no policy about gay kids. Maybe you should bring that up and try to get one passed. If there's one thing the Scouts don't need, it's the inclusion of people remotely different than them.

And your idea that letting gay kids in would 'inevitably' lead to rape is beyond offensive. Seriously, if your brain automatically goes there, you really shouldn't be allowed to be around kids. Ever.

[Winslow]

Thanks for the interesting responses.

I'm not sure I want to get into this today. I'm having a shitty day with a home contractor, and I'm not in the mood.

[Winslow]

I think your friends argument is almost painful in its oversimplification. . . .

His friend needs to read the Ed Cunard quote in my sig.

[Paul McEnery]

Would you apply the same standard to a Catholic Church's Married Man Bible Study organization that feeds the homeless? It's only open to married Catholic men who want to study the Bible. Jewish women aren't invited to join. Does that trump their food drives and make them a bad organization?

That's an unfortunate example.

Because Catholic Services has cut up real nasty about being forced into compliance with anti-discriminatory policies, and has also enforced its own moral agenda (for instance, taking away the free contraception from street kid services).

To Valmore:

I'd like to suggest to you that it's not a matter of cool so much as a matter of community status. If you need to be part of the golf club to succeed in business (that doesn't seem too much of a stretch) then being exclusive is iffy. If scouting is a big part of the community -- and it was where I grew up -- then discrimination is a problem. Whereas gym membership -- there's lots of gyms, and to the best of my knowledge, nobody gets a leg up for being part of Crunch.

It might also be pointed out that some women may have other reasons for not wanting men to be watching them while they work out.

[Valmore]

To Valmore:

I'd like to suggest to you that it's not a matter of cool so much as a matter of community status. If you need to be part of the golf club to succeed in business (that doesn't seem too much of a stretch) then being exclusive is iffy. If scouting is a big part of the community -- and it was where I grew up -- then discrimination is a problem. Whereas gym membership -- there's lots of gyms, and to the best of my knowledge, nobody gets a leg up for being part of Crunch.

It might also be pointed out that some women may have other reasons for not wanting men to be watching them while they work out.

But every example is a private organization, two of which have come under fire, the third one of which hasn't.

Seems like a double-standard for NOW to protest the Masters because Augusta National doesn't allow women memberships and yet stays mum on female-only gyms when both are private organizations.

And why haven't they come under fire?

Because a guy trying to join Curves would get laughed at. Because it's not cool.

But hey, maybe there are insecure guys who don't want to work out in front of the buff dudes. It makes them feel bad. Maybe working out with 40-year old women would make them more comfortable.

And scouting is only a big part of the community if the community lets them be such. The scouts have seen some backlash over their policies from communities. In others they haven't.

Which still makes the one point - why would an atheist want their child in the scouts?

Because there's something there that appeals to them. They just don't like one certain aspect. But it's not up to the scouts to change for the sake of the atheists. Or even the homosexuals.

[Nick Soapdish]

But every example is a private organization, two of which have come under fire, the third one of which hasn't.

Seems like a double-standard for NOW to protest the Masters because Augusta National doesn't allow women memberships and yet stays mum on female-only gyms when both are private organizations.

And why haven't they come under fire?

Because a guy trying to join Curves would get laughed at. Because it's not cool.

But hey, maybe there are insecure guys who don't want to work out in front of the buff dudes. It makes them feel bad. Maybe working out with 40-year old women would make them more comfortable.


It seems inconsistent to me as well.

But I'd like to point out that they just opened up a gym in Tallahassee for the 40-and-up set so that guy can go there where he's less likely to feel uncomfortable. And it's not the same to be concerned about being ogled or to be embarrassed about not being in shape. (Besides which, some women are pretty buff. As well as some people in the 40-and-up set.)

[Valmore]

It seems inconsistent to me as well.

But I'd like to point out that they just opened up a gym in Tallahassee for the 40-and-up set so that guy can go there where he's less likely to feel uncomfortable. And it's not the same to be concerned about being ogled or to be embarrassed about not being in shape. (Besides which, some women are pretty buff. As well as some people in the 40-and-up set.)

Hey, some of those 40-year old women are pretty in-shape and hot.

[Paul McEnery]

Hey, some of those 40-year old women are pretty in-shape and hot.

Let's be clear about it.

Curves doesn't want all men out.

It's you.









This post would normally come supplied with a smiley to indicate that I am trying to be funny, and am in fact a genial, warm, and fun-loving human being. Likewise this disclaimer, in order to further deflect nasturtiums being cast at my obvious lack of character. Too bad. Too bad about those horrible horrible smilies.

[Dan Apodaca]

Important points:

1. Gay marriage is not a matter of social preference. We are supposed to live in a country of equal rights, PERIOD.

2. Exlcusion of homosexuals is not part of the BSA's foundation. It was added in when the Mormons took over the organization. Also, as long as the group receives federal benefits, they do not get to behave as a private organization would.

3. Many good deeds do not excuse a single bad one.

[Dan Apodaca]

Would you apply the same standard to a Catholic Church's Married Man Bible Study organization that feeds the homeless? It's only open to married Catholic men who want to study the Bible. Jewish women aren't invited to join. Does that trump their food drives and make them a bad organization?

Jewish women aren't trying to join the club. Bad example.

Also, the club (not organization) was created for a certain type of man. BSA was not.

[BoosterBronze]

Jewish women aren't trying to join the club. Bad example.

Also, the club (not organization) was created for a certain type of man. BSA was not.

Apparently, it was designed for a certain type of man- hetero-sexual men with a religion.
(From the BSA website) Accordingly, in the exercise of their constitutional right to bring the values of Scouting to youth members, the Boy Scouts of America will not employ atheists, agnostics, known or avowed homosexuals, or others as professional Scouters or in other capacities in which such employment would tend to interfere with the mission of reinforcing the values of the Scout Oath and the Scout Law in young people.

“The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God.

Whether or not one agrees with BSA's stance, it's clearly the sort of club they want to be and they type of man they want to have in it.

1. Gay marriage is not a matter of social preference. We are supposed to live in a country of equal rights, PERIOD.

I don't want to get into the gay marriage debate here, except to say that saying 'period' at the end of a gross oversimplification doesn't make it any less of a gross oversimplification. PERIOD.


3. Many good deeds do not excuse a single bad one.

So if a Jewish single woman wanted to be a part of the Married Catholic Men's Bible Study and Food Drive she must be allowed, or else the organization is now 'bad'?

[Matt Algren]

Apparently, it was designed for a certain type of man- hetero-sexual men with a religion.


Whether or not one agrees with BSA's stance, it's clearly the sort of club they want to be and they type of man they want to have in it.



I don't want to get into the gay marriage debate here, except to say that saying 'period' at the end of a gross oversimplification doesn't make it any less of a gross oversimplification. PERIOD.




So if a Jewish single woman wanted to be a part of the Married Catholic Men's Bible Study and Food Drive she must be allowed, or else the organization is now 'bad'?
You accidentally edited out #2.

And I'm not sure how the 'period' is an oversimplification. Please explain.

Thanks!



PS: When did they remove "Negros" from the list of people they won't hire?

[Sean Whitmore]

I don't want to get into the gay marriage debate here, except to say that saying 'period' at the end of a gross oversimplification doesn't make it any less of a gross oversimplification.

Luckily, that's not what he did, so much as stating a simple truth.


SEAN

[BoosterBronze]

Luckily, that's not what he did, so much as stating a simple truth.


SEAN

I would respond with the observation that a homosexual has the exact same legal right a heterosexual has to marry a member of the opposite gender.

It seems to me as silly to take a complicated issue and make it a sound-byte with 'me=good, anyone not me=ignorant bigot. PERIOD." as an argument.

You accidentally edited out #2.

And I'm not sure how the 'period' is an oversimplification. Please explain.

I know nothing about Scout history. Whether or not they didn't allow blacks, or how the Mormons 'took over.' I'm not sure what federal benefits they get, as they're listed as a non-profit organization.

[Dan Apodaca]

Apparently, it was designed for a certain type of man- hetero-sexual men with a religion.

No, it wasn't. That was a change that was made to BSA when the Mormons took charge of the group. It was not a part of the DESIGN of the group.

I don't want to get into the gay marriage debate here, except to say that saying 'period' at the end of a gross oversimplification doesn't make it any less of a gross oversimplification. PERIOD.

It's not an oversimplification. That's all that matters. In a country of equal rights, everyone deserves to have equal rights, including that of legalized marriage and the legal benefits that come with it.

Any ideas beyond that are gross overcomplications of a simple matter. Rationalization for bigotry. I will gladly get into the gay marriage debate here, or anywhere, because it's a major issue of civil rights that should not be ignored.

So if a Jewish single woman wanted to be a part of the Married Catholic Men's Bible Study and Food Drive she must be allowed, or else the organization is now 'bad'?


If a jewish woman wanted to join a volunteer group to help the homeless, she ought to be allowed, or it is obvious that the group is more concerned with being exclusive than helping people. That is a bad quality in my eyes. Maybe not in yours.

[Sean Whitmore]

It seems to me as silly to take a complicated issue and make it a sound-byte with 'me=good, anyone not me=ignorant bigot. PERIOD." as an argument.

If I thought it was a complicated issue, I would heartily agree with you.


SEAN

[Michael P]

I would respond with the observation that a homosexual has the exact same legal right a heterosexual has to marry a member of the opposite gender.

Which is like saying I have the exact same legal right to get a hysterectomy anytime I want.

[Matt Algren]

I would respond with the observation that a homosexual has the exact same legal right a heterosexual has to marry a member of the opposite gender. I would respond with the observation that it's handy that the distinction was just written into the law recently, and that the ones writing the law aren't interested in marrying someone of their gender.

It's kind of like telling an black man in the 1950s that he had the same rights as a white man to use the bathroom set aside for his own race. We all have the same rights, see? We're separate, but equal!

It's a Win-Win!

[Dan Apodaca]

I would respond with the observation that a homosexual has the exact same legal right a heterosexual has to marry a member of the opposite gender.

It seems to me as silly to take a complicated issue and make it a sound-byte with 'me=good, anyone not me=ignorant bigot. PERIOD." as an argument.

This is not a personal issue between me and anyone else. This is an issue of civil rights, that I feel important enough to speak out about.

I know nothing about Scout history. Whether or not they didn't allow blacks, or how the Mormons 'took over.' I'm not sure what federal benefits they get, as they're listed as a non-profit organization.

So, maybe you're not really qualified to speak on this issue, then?

The Mormons bought the BSA in the 70's. They are allowed to use federally owned properties for their functions at an extremely reduced cost, and to be housed in public school buildings, among other things, all of which require a service to the public that they refuse to provide.

You ought to look at the Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode about the BSA. It is pretty revealing.

[Sean Whitmore]

We're separate, but equal!

See, THAT'S a good sound byte. Why'd we ever get rid of that?





Oh, right.


SEAN

[Gilda Dent]

I would respond with the observation that it's handy that the distinction was just written into the law recently, and that the ones writing the law aren't interested in marrying someone of their gender.

It's kind of like telling an black man in the 1950s that he had the same rights as a white man to use the bathroom set aside for his own race. We all have the same rights, see? We're separate, but equal!

It's a Win-Win!

Or like telling a black woman in the 1960's that she has the same right to marry someone of her own race as a white woman.

[BoosterBronze]

Any ideas beyond that are gross overcomplications of a simple matter. Rationalization for bigotry. I will gladly get into the gay marriage debate here, or anywhere, because it's a major issue of civil rights that should not be ignored.

Dan, I don't want to do the gay marriage debate because I agree with you. I'm all for gay marriage. I disagree that it's simple.

I'm against labeling the half of the nation that disagrees with me as stupid and bigoted when we're talking about altering an institution that is a cornerstone of our culture and a concept like gay marriage being so anathema to so many people of faith.

No, it wasn't. That was a change that was made to BSA when the Mormons took charge of the group. It was not a part of the DESIGN of the group.

How many organizations are still the same 100 years after they're founded? I don't see what this has to do with the issue that the BSA currently does not want gays or atheists? I think their view is unfortunate, and it would be great if they would change. If they don't my kids will not be allowed to be Scouts.

I'm not convinded that not being totally inclusive completely invalidates any positives a group does.


or it is obvious that the group is more concerned with being exclusive than helping people. That is a bad quality in my eyes. Maybe not in yours.

I keep using the Married Cahtolic Men's Bible Study as an example because that organization actually does the canned food drive at my work. I don't see any problem in them not allowing a hypothetical Jewish woman into their group. What's the point of a group intended for Married Cahtolic Men to get together and Study the Bible that included Jewish Women?

What's the point of a scouting organization that very plainly promotes religion as a fundamental part of its purpose, that includes atheists?

[BoosterBronze]

The Mormons bought the BSA in the 70's. They are allowed to use federally owned properties for their functions at an extremely reduced cost, and to be housed in public school buildings, among other things, all of which require a service to the public that they refuse to provide.


Then this should not be allowed. My understanding was they were funded by charities, largley United Way.

[Paul McEnery]

I would respond with the observation that a homosexual has the exact same legal right a heterosexual has to marry a member of the opposite gender. .

Ah.

Then we would poke you with the pokey stick we reserve for people who rely on quoting from Brewer's Book of Very Silly Things to Say.

[Paul McEnery]

Which is like saying I have the exact same legal right to get a hysterectomy anytime I want.

Wait. Now you have a vagina too?

Don't go to the beach!

[Paul McEnery]

How many organizations are still the same 100 years after they're founded? I don't see what this has to do with the issue that the BSA currently does not want gays or atheists? I think their view is unfortunate, and it would be great if they would change. If they don't my kids will not be allowed to be Scouts.


Whee. I just looked this up.

I knew it was the Brits who got the ball rolling. Of course there was an oath to God in it. Oath to the King, too. I think you Americans should keep that one in, too. And say "dib dib dib" and wear a woggle, because that's the best bit.

I didn't know it was American progressives who took it on over here, in the hope of creating well adjusted and responsible boys do social activism. Har har! Now you must eat your puppy dogs' tails and like it!

But most of all, when a rotten bunch of sods take over a well-intentioned organization and stuff it full of their ignorant bigotry, well, balls to them, I say. Balls!

I conclude this learned dissertation with a moving picture of a constipated gibbon: :o

[Sean Whitmore]

I'm against labeling the half of the nation that disagrees with me as stupid and bigoted when we're talking about altering an institution that is a cornerstone of our culture and a concept like gay marriage being so anathema to so many people of faith.

I'm okay with it, because those people are living in a fantasy land where the concept of marriage is still sacrosanct and faith is a good enough excuse for denying people the right to share in it.


SEAN

[Paul McEnery]

I'm okay with it, because those people are living in a fantasy land where the concept of marriage is sacrosanct and faith is a good enough excuse for denying people to share in it.


SEAN

The way I look at it, if one mormon guy hogs half a dozen women, who are the rest of the men supposed to marry?

[Gilda Dent]

While we're at it, I might as well point out what I always do when this comes up, that the gay marriage debate is about CIVIL MARRIAGE, and the rights that come with it, and has nothing to do with faith.

[Wesley Dodds]

I would respond with the observation that a homosexual has the exact same legal right a heterosexual has to marry a member of the opposite gender.

Obviously, if people share some rights, that doesn't mean they share all rights.

- Gays have the exact same legal right as heterosexuals to marry a carbon-based organism
- Therefore gays and heterosexuals have equal rights

See? The argument's pretty silly.

[Dan Apodaca]

Dan, I don't want to do the gay marriage debate because I agree with you. I'm all for gay marriage. I disagree that it's simple.

You don't agree with me. You support the same end result, and I'm not unhappy about having more supporters of the cause, but we are clearly in it for very different reasons.

I'm against labeling the half of the nation that disagrees with me as stupid and bigoted when we're talking about altering an institution that is a cornerstone of our culture and a concept like gay marriage being so anathema to so many people of faith.

First off, you're the one who keeps using terms like "stupid and bigoted".

Since when is marriage an exclusively American practice? It's not a cornerstone of our culture, it's a cornerstone of human culture, and homosexuals are just as human as heterosexuals. It's American egotism that perpetuates the idea that marriage is an idea we created and have domain over. Not to mention the fact that there are so many various types of marriage that are legally recognized, which due to their religious affiliation, would be anathema to those same people of faith, anyway. They are allowed, though.

How many organizations are still the same 100 years after they're founded? I don't see what this has to do with the issue that the BSA currently does not want gays or atheists? I think their view is unfortunate, and it would be great if they would change. If they don't my kids will not be allowed to be Scouts.

You argued that their mode of behavior was one they had always adhered to. I'm pointing out that it isn't, thus invalidating your Catholic Club analogy. That's all there is to it.

I'm not convinded that not being totally inclusive completely invalidates any positives a group does.

So good deeds excuse bad ones? We have very different world-views.

I keep using the Married Cahtolic Men's Bible Study as an example because that organization actually does the canned food drive at my work. I don't see any problem in them not allowing a hypothetical Jewish woman into their group. What's the point of a group intended for Married Cahtolic Men to get together and Study the Bible that included Jewish Women?

What's the point of a scouting organization that very plainly promotes religion as a fundamental part of its purpose, that includes atheists?


The main difference being that the Catholic Club from your analogy is not receiving federal privileges or reaping the benefits of public funding from tax dollars.

What's the point of a scouting organization that very plainly promotes religion as a fundamental part of its purpose, that uses public resources?

[JeffreyWKramer]

I'm okay with it, because those people are living in a fantasy land where the concept of marriage is still sacrosanct and faith is a good enough excuse for denying people the right to share in it.


SEAN

More or less what I was going to say. Well said, Sean.

Let me just add, once again: prejudice and bigotry based on religious doctrine is still prejudice and bigotry.

[BoosterBronze]

Somehow I've found myself embroiled in several very different discussions when I started as discussing a very specific points. I will attempt to clarify my points.

I began against Ace's argument that membership in the republican party de facto meant someone was a bad person. I still disagree with this.

The whole gay marriage thing was the consequence of Ace claiming the GOP was 'anti-gay' which I ammended to 'anti-gay marriage' which I beleive a human being of good conscience can hold as an opinion without being a bad person.

To say the gay marriage issue is simple (PERIOD) is to imply that all people who disagree must be either ignorant or willfully promoting unjust inequality. I disagree with this.

I think interracial or homosexual unions being banned is unjust but I also disagree that miscegenation laws and gay marriage laws are similar enough to be a 1:1 comparison.

Dan and I apparently have a disagreement about the Mormon's owning the BSA or something. I was confused by this but it seems to stem from this comment I made with an ambiguous past tense:

Apparently, it (The BSA) was designed for a certain type of man- hetero-sexual men with a religion.

Let me rephrase that as

Apparently, it IS (or at least WAS in the last thirty+ years) designed for a certain type of man- hetero-sexual men with a religion.

I don't argue for the strict original intent interpretation of the BSA's founders a century ago.

All the rights to discriminate the BSA have are the rights of a private organization. If Scouts receive federal funds of some sort, then they should not. I've never disagreed with this in any post.

Do good deeds cancel bad deeds? I don't know. I'm not convinced however that an organization, religious or secular, excluding people from their organization in line with their organizations goals, is intrinsically a bad deed, whether they be the blatantly religious Boy Scouts, a woman's only Curves gym, the Catholic Married Men's Bible Crew, or the Black Student Union.

[Paul McEnery]

The biography of the founder of the Scouts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Baden-Powell) on Wiki makes for interesting reading. Myself, I find it difficult to believe that the Charterhouse lad who became the author of Scouting for Boys was a stranger to the concept of underage homosexuality; especially when you learn that he finally married at 55, and immediately went down with all manner of psychosomatic illnesses until he moved his bed out onto the balcony.

The man also had an unhealthy fascination for beautiful jackbooted me... I mean for Mein Kampf and the Italian Fascist Party, putting swastikas on the scout badge. Hmm...

[BoosterBronze]

While we're at it, I might as well point out what I always do when this comes up, that the gay marriage debate is about CIVIL MARRIAGE, and the rights that come with it, and has nothing to do with faith.

But Gilda, for a huge percentage of the country (in the case America, since BSA is the topic here) it is a deeply religious and cultural issue.

I think those people are wrong, by my own morals and legally, but my point is refusing to label them 'bad people' becuase of it.

I think that acting like the issue is cut-and-dry is ultimately counter-productive. I think America is the greatest society yet acheived by man, but the argument "I"m a Utopian, you're a caveman, fuck you"* which infests so many aspects of progressive talk, only hurts the quest for perfecting our society because it stops out ability to communicate.

*Not saying you're making that argument. Only that that argument is what I'm talking about in my previous posts.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I think America is the greatest society yet acheived by man

You musn't think much of mankind then...

[Gilda Dent]

But Gilda, for a huge percentage of the country (in the case America, since BSA is the topic here) it is a deeply religious and cultural issue.

While it's certainly a cultural issue, civil marriage by definition is not a religious issue. Religious marriage is a religious issue. Civil marriage is a civil rights issue. It really is that simple.

I think those people are wrong, by my own morals and legally, but my point is refusing to label them 'bad people' becuase of it.

I can see that. I don't think everyone who opposes legalized gay marriage is necessarily a bad person, but they are supporting bigoted ideas and policies.

I think that acting like the issue is cut-and-dry is ultimately counter-productive. I think America is the greatest society yet acheived by man, but the argument "I"m a Utopian, you're a caveman, fuck you"* which infests so many aspects of progressive talk, only hurts the quest for perfecting our society because it stops out ability to communicate.

*Not saying you're making that argument. Only that that argument is what I'm talking about in my previous posts.

Thank you for the clarification. There are complex issues on which reasonable people can come to different conclusions given the same objective evidence. Gun control, abortion, capital punishment, none of these is a simple cut and dried obvious issue.

Treating all citizens equally and not denying disfavored minorities basic civil rights based on their minority status? That, to me, is clearly and unambiguously the right thing to do and directly in line with the stated goals on which this country was founded. Anything less should be unacceptable.

[Sean Whitmore]

You musn't think much of mankind then...

Oh, go eat a koala bear.




(Those things are edible, right?)


SEAN

[JeffreyWKramer]

But Gilda, for a huge percentage of the country (in the case America, since BSA is the topic here) it is a deeply religious and cultural issue.

I think those people are wrong, by my own morals and legally, but my point is refusing to label them 'bad people' becuase of it.

Bigots aren't always bad people, but bigotry is always bad behavior, and the source of the bigotry - religion, culture, bad parenting, bad experiences, pure ignorance or whatever - is irrelevant. It is still wrong, it's still harmful and it's still contrary to basic concepts of freedom, civility and human dignity.

[Charles RB]

I'm against labeling the half of the nation that disagrees with me as stupid and bigoted when we're talking about altering an institution that is a cornerstone of our culture and a concept like gay marriage being so anathema to so many people of faith.

It should be recognised that it's anathema to so many people of faith - anything similar has also shown to be anathema, as the Civil Partnership Act in the UK didn't make much of Northern Ireland happy or some religious groups. I recognise that.

I still have no problem with Northern Ireland and religious groups having to put the fuck up with it.

[Valmore]

Oh, go eat a koala bear.




(Those things are edible, right?)


SEAN

I'd be careful - a whole lot of koalas have syphilis.

[Paul McEnery]

I'd be careful - a whole lot of koalas have syphilis.

Funky already knows.

How do you think they got it?

[JeffreyWKramer]

I'd be careful - a whole lot of koalas have syphilis.

Those Aussies will fuck anything I guess.

[Valmore]

Those Aussies will fuck anything I guess.

Even more common amongst koalas is chlamydia.

So yeah, if you get offered to hold one while vacationing in Australia, you may wanna pass.

[Sean Whitmore]

I'd be careful - a whole lot of koalas have syphilis.

Yeah, but it's not like you can get it twice, y'know?


SEAN

[Paul McEnery]

Even more common amongst koalas is chlamydia.

So yeah, if you get offered to hold one while vacationing in Australia, you may wanna make a pass.

Fixed it for you.

Some of those koalas are darned pervalicious.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Fixed it for you.

Some of those koalas are darned pervalicious.

So, you're a furry now? Or just into bestiality?

[Cam63]

Oh, go eat a koala bear.




(Those things are edible, right?)


SEAN

I presume they taste cute.

[Cam63]

Even more common amongst koalas is chlamydia.

So yeah, if you get offered to hold one while vacationing in Australia, you may wanna pass.

Saint Patrick shoulda drove der filthy bastards oww-t !

Umm.. der koalas too...

[Angelus II]

Everyone. Yeah, that right I said everyone.