[The Final Dakar]

How long was the ban in place? Since around 2004?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

How long was the ban in place? Since around 2004?

AFAIK, since its founding.

[The Final Dakar]

This was what I was thinking of:

The BSA adopted a new policy statement in 2004 which included a specific "Youth Leadership" policy stating that: "Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. The conduct of youth members must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law, and membership in Boy Scouts of America is contingent upon the willingness to accept Scouting’s values and beliefs. Most boys join Scouting when they are 10 or 11 years old. As they continue in the program, all Scouts are expected to take leadership positions. In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position."

The year homophobia was all the rage.

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

The Boy Scouts just announced they are removing *their* ban on homosexual leaders... note that sponsoring organizations (ie, churches) will still have the ability to block gay leaders if they feel like it.

The hateful things I saw posted on Facebook are so opposite to how our local Troop is run, so opposite to the meaning of "a scout will be kind" and have extremely narrow views of what the word "moral" means.

"Kind" must mean "kind of a dick".

[The Final Dakar]

Scott Walker Weighs in on New Proposal That Would Allow Gay Boy Scout Leaders…

“I have had a lifelong commitment to the Scouts and support the previous membership policy because it protected children and advanced Scout values.”

Gays: A Danger to Your Children

[Cap'n Tightpants]

An evangelical is distrustful of the gays? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

[The Final Dakar]

I hadn't heard he was an evangelical. I had heard that he's the only one in his family who is against gay marriage, which is hilarious.

[Chongo]

Re the BSA:
There will most likely be a move to form a male version of American Heritage Girls

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I hadn't heard he was an evangelical. I had heard that he's the only one in his family who is against gay marriage, which is hilarious.

5 faith facts about Scott Walker: Son of a preacher man - Religion News Service

[The Final Dakar]

So, what are the odds this goes to the SCOTUS in the next 3 years?
Sexual orientation discrimination at work: EEOC says it's illegal under federal law.

On Thursday, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that sexual orientation discrimination is already illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As BuzzFeed's Chris Geidner reports, the EEOC's groundbreaking decision effectively declares that employment discrimination against gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers is unlawful in all 50 states. The commission already found that Title VII bars discrimination on the basis of gender identity, protecting trans employees.

Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, including, the Supreme Court has ruled, irrational sex stereotyping. The EEOC previously held that when an employer discriminates a gay employee for being effeminate—or a lesbian employee for being butch—that qualifies as illegal sex stereotyping. Now the commission has taken that logic one step farther. When an employer disapproves of a lesbian employee's orientation, he’s really objecting to the fact that a woman is romantically attracted to another woman. This objection is based on irrational, stereotyped views of femininity and womanhood. Thus, when the employer discriminates against his lesbian employee, that discrimination is based in large part on her sex, and on his anger that she does not fit into her gender role.

The EEOC also presents a simpler secondary theory: Sexual orientation discrimination is “associational discrimination on the basis of sex.” When a homophobic employer mistreats a gay male employee, he does so because he dislikes the fact that his employee dates other men. In other words, the employer took that employee's sex into account while making the decision to treat him unequally. Such discrimination is obviously sex-based—and therefore forbidden by Title VII.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

What if it's a guy whose outrageously effeminate voice sets your teeth on edge?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

An evangelical is distrustful of the gays? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Not evangelical enough, apparently. He walked it back a little.

"I'm not talking about personal protection. I'm talking about, for me, the reason why I didn't have a problem with it is I just think it pulls Scouting into a whole larger political and cultural debate, as opposed to just saying Scouting is about camping and citizenship and merit badges and service awards, instead of pulling all these other issues out there. And I was just hoping that they could stay focused on that, that's all," said Walker, who is an Eagle Scout.

[The Final Dakar]

5,000 naked anti-gay protesters to greet Obama in Kenya - UPI.com

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Not evangelical enough, apparently. He walked it back a little.

I'm willing to take him at face value, but he fails to understand not making a statement, is a statement.

"Camping can only be about camping if everyone is straight" is a ****ing statement.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm willing to take him at face value, but he fails to understand not making a statement, is a statement.

"Camping can only be about camping if everyone is straight" is a ****ing statement.

He's more about not taking a strong position. Like with evolution.

He's also about trying to mold certain positions into not looking like what they likely mean. Like his gay scout one not being about gay but the scouts. He's for a marriage amendment but he's going to pretend he has no problem with gay people. Sort of a "I don't hate you, I just believe in freedom to deny you rights."

[subego]

Sidebar...

I think this question is going to be very important this cycle.

Do we debate Walker on a crypto-analysis of what we think his real position is, or do we go with what he says.

I lean towards the latter because that's how I always lean.

[The Final Dakar]

We go by what he says, because chances are if he's lying there will be past statements or actions that contradict him. Like his stance on immigration.

[subego]

Well, then it goes back to his statement he wants politics out of scouting.

He then goes on to describe an absence of politics being an absence of gays.

I know the term hetero-normative has become something of a joke, but this is exactly what it was invented to describe.

The problem (and I'm not accusing you of this) is the vast majority of people who would use this term to describe what's going on would find it nowhere near judgmental enough, and would much rather point and scream "HOMOPHOBE!"

[The Final Dakar]

Wouldn't the most appropriate term be discriminatory?

[The Final Dakar]

Goshen, Eastern Mennonite LGBTQ policy: New era of acceptance for gay professors at these two Christian colleges.

Two Christian colleges—Eastern Mennonite University and Goshen College—announced Monday that they will change their hiring procedures to permit the hiring of faculty members who are in same-sex marriages.

The announcement comes just weeks after the Mennonite Church USA rejected a proposal to authorize same-sex marriages, but went on to adopt what is being called the “forbearance resolution,” which calls for tolerance on these issues:

We acknowledge that there is currently not consensus within Mennonite Church USA on whether it is appropriate to bless Christians who are in same-sex covenanted unions. Because God has called us to seek peace and unity as together we discern and seek wisdom on these matters, we call on all those in Mennonite Church USA to offer grace, love and forbearance toward conferences, congregations and pastors in our body who, in different ways, seek to be faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ on matters related to same-sex covenanted unions.

(Emphasis mine)

Loren Swartzendruber, president at Eastern Mennonite, noted in an interview on Tuesday morning that his institution has been engaged in a two-year “listening process” on university policy on same-sex faculty members. During that time, he said, it became clear that those on campus—students and faculty members—strongly backed a change to hire gay and straight faculty members with the same rules and without discrimination. He said that off-campus constituencies—including alumni and church leaders—were far more mixed in their views of change.

She stressed that the university was sticking to its principles that human sexuality should be expressed through committed marriage and that the university's rules for hiring would not be acceptable for many individuals, straight or gay. “We are holding to our understanding of faithful committed marriage, but we are saying we accept people in either gay or straight relationships.”

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Wouldn't the most appropriate term be discriminatory?

That's a good term for the effect. Arguing it's the cause is a tough row to hoe.

Even if it's technically correct as a cause, almost no one will consider themselves such, so it's not a good place to be arguing from if your goal is winning hearts and minds.

[The Final Dakar]

Court: Houston Must Repeal Ordinance or Put it on Ballot - Myhighplains.com - Powered by KAMR LOCAL 4

The Texas Supreme Court on Friday ruled that the Houston City Council must repeal or put up for public vote a 2014 ordinance that extended protections to gay and transgender residents.

The court directed the city council to repeal the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, better known as HERO, by Aug. 24 or place it on the November ballot. Passed after an intense public debate, the ordinance expanded the city’s ban on discrimination to include protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity at businesses that serve the public. The protections also apply to city contractors and municipal workers.

The passage of the ordinance was met by challenges from conservative activists and pastors who led a petition drive calling for a referendum or a repeal. But city officials ruled that those efforts voters failed to draw enough signatures. Opponents of the ordinance then took the issue to the courts, alleging in a lawsuit that the city inappropriately disqualified some of the signatures.

In April, a state district judge ruled in favor of the city, saying opponents of the ordinance had not gathered enough valid signatures for a referendum.

But in its Friday decision, the Supreme Court directed the city council “to comply with its duties” in considering a valid referendum petition.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

it's not a good place to be arguing from if your goal is winning hearts and minds.

Yeah, I don't think conservatives and christians are trying to do that.

[subego]

We're the ones trying to change hearts and minds.

Calling someone (like Walker) discriminatory only serves to indicate you think he's a jag.

That's only useful to show "indignation credibility" to people who agree with you, and agitate those who don't.

[The Final Dakar]

Ah, sorry, I get it now.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

I can't stop laughing, the Progressive Left attacking a gay pride event (again). Holy shit. So being gay and showing public displays of affection is racism? Really? Right is Left, up is down, dogs and cats sleeping together... it's mass hysteria.

http://www.blazingcatfur.ca/2015/07/...ade-as-racist/

[subego]

I actually think (more or less) the accusations being thrown are accurate.

Muslims are being called a race here, which is buffoonery, but I ask you allow me to do it for ease of communication in the statement I'm about to make.

The parade organizers are trying to incite a race war, and are calling upon their Shitlord superpowers to make it happen.

But wouldn't you know it, for reasons such as "throw rocks at parade", I'm not so inclined to call foul. I'll just have to live with being a Shitlord on this one.

That said, the parade route is an objectively bad idea. I'm usually anti-race war.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I can't stop laughing, the Progressive Left attacking a gay pride event (again). Holy shit. So being gay and showing public displays of affection is racism? Really? Right is Left, up is down, dogs and cats sleeping together... it's mass hysteria.

http://www.blazingcatfur.ca/2015/07/...ade-as-racist/

That sounds like the Illinois Nazis wanting to stage a parade through Skokie where most of the population was at that time Holocaust survivors.

This was many years ago. I was channel surfing and tuned to C-SPAN. They had a live feed from a gay pride parade. I don't remember if it was DC or NYC. They had a camera roaming through the crowd. I was surprised it went out unedited. Let's just say it was not kid safe television. I'd be interested to see if any of the news channels would be willing to do an uncensored live broadcast from the SF pride festival, if they were even allowed to.

[Chongo]

This is "commodification of the womb" I was talking about.
Gay couple from U.S. in Thai custody battle over surrogate baby

BANGKOK (Reuters) - A gay couple from the United States said on Wednesday their lives were being "destroyed" after a Thai surrogate mother refused to sign papers allowing them to take their baby out of Thailand.

The controversy is the latest over surrogacy in Thailand after several cases last year including accusations that an Australian couple abandoned their Down Syndrome baby with his birth mother, taking only his healthy twin sister back to Australia.

In the latest case, Gordon Allan Lake and his Spanish husband, Manuel Santos, say Thai surrogate Patidta Kusolsang, who is not the baby's biological mother, decided she wanted to keep their baby, Carmen, as the couple was preparing to leave Thailand.

This the story referenced in the first article.
Surrogacy Storm In Thailand: A Rejected Baby, A Busy Babymaker : Goats and Soda : NPR

Baby Gammy might mean the end of Thailand's lucrative surrogacy business.

He's the child who was carried by a surrogate mom in Thailand— and rejected by the Australian couple who had agreed to pay the mother $12,000. The reason: Prenatal testing showed that the baby, a twin, had Down syndrome.

Thailand is one of only a few countries that allows foreigners to hire locals to serve as surrogates. The money flows to the clinics that work with foreign couples and the women who carry the babies.

"Of course I did it for money," says Pattaramon Janbua, who lives in a two-room shack in the seaside city of Sriracha, which gave the hot sauce its name. "Our family is poor and I wanted ... to take better care of my other children." There's nothing wrong with being a surrogate mother, she says; you're helping someone.

Thailand has since made the practice illegal.

Neither article states where the eggs were obtained and whose sperm was used for the IVF procedure.

I'm still waiting for someone to enlighten me on how SS male couples became parents before IFV and surrogacy. Adoption wasn't available until recently either.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

That sounds like the Illinois Nazis wanting to stage a parade through Skokie where most of the population was at that time Holocaust survivors.

This was many years ago. I was channel surfing and tuned to C-SPAN. They had a live feed from a gay pride parade. I don't remember if it was DC or NYC. They had a camera roaming through the crowd. I was surprised it went out unedited. Let's just say it was not kid safe television. I'd be interested to see if any of the news channels would be willing to do an uncensored live broadcast from the SF pride festival, if they were even allowed to.

I'd hardly compare outraged Muslims to holocaust survivors. Last time I checked, gays never tortured and murdered millions of people within Islam (quite the opposite, actually).

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I'd hardly compare outraged Muslims to holocaust survivors. Last time I checked, gays never tortured and murdered millions of people within Islam (quite the opposite, actually).

I meant as far as looking to stir up a fight.

[Chongo]

Now ABC is promoting plural marriage?
Two Moms, One Dad, Two Babies Make One Big Happy Polyamorous Family - ABC News

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Now ABC is promoting plural marriage?
Two Moms, One Dad, Two Babies Make One Big Happy Polyamorous Family - ABC News

Good for them! That's just like home, only minus one child (which may be a changing situation, if my wife Kim keeps her current state of mind). I'm much more open to having a larger family now than ever before. We've known that particular poly family for a couple years now, the open plural marriage set is rather small, and they're great people and have the right mindset for it.

As I've said numerous times before, this type of domestic partnership is not for everyone, by any stretch of the imagination, it takes an order of magnitude more work to keep it functioning (it requires an almost-superheroic sense of empathy and well-beyond-average communication skills). But, at the same time, it's an order of magnitude more rewarding and fruitful when it is.

[The Final Dakar]

Republican Committee Quietly Rejects Anti-Gay Marriage Resolution

The Republican National Committee’s resolutions committee quietly rejected a pair of resolutions critical of homosexuality Wednesday.
…
The first resolution, introduced by embattled Michigan national committeeman Dave Agema, would have encouraged “schools that are teaching the homosexual lifestyle in their sexual education class also include the harmful physical aspects of the lifestyle.” The second, which would have encouraged Congress and states to pass laws in an effort to nullify June’s Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide, was introduced by Louisiana national committeeman Ross Little, Jr.

No, don't stop now! You guys are almost winning!

[The Final Dakar]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/us...nged.html?_r=0

Mississippi’s ban is now the only one of its kind in the nation. And legal experts said that in the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s decision upholding same-sex marriage it was highly unlikely the state’s ban could hold up in court.

Last year, 29 percent of Mississippi’s same-sex-couple households were raising children under 18 — the highest percentage of any state in the nation, the complaint said.

“The Mississippi Adoption Ban writes inequality into Mississippi law by requiring that married gay and lesbian couples and parents be treated differently than all other married couples in Mississippi, unequivocally barring them from adoption without regard to their circumstances,” the complaint said. It called the ban “an outdated relic of a time when courts and legislature believed that it was somehow O.K. to discriminate against gay people simply because they are gay.”

“I believed at the time this was a principled position based on my faith. But I no longer believe it was right,” he wrote. “As I have gotten older, I came to understand that a person’s sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to be a good parent.”

Curious whether you think the law is more clear cut or less in this case, subego.

[subego]

My knee-jerk reaction is the Mississippi law is now big-time unconstitutional.

[The Final Dakar]

On what grounds? And how did those grounds not apply to gay marriage?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

On what grounds? And how did those grounds not apply to gay marriage?

Since gay marriage is legal everywhere, saying gay married couples can't adopt is clearly discriminatory.

You can't really apply that reasoning to gay marriage without getting circular. It didn't apply to gay marriage because there were plenty of places gay marriage was illegal.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Since gay marriage is legal everywhere, saying gay married couples can't adopt is clearly discriminatory.

You can't really apply that reasoning to gay marriage without getting circular. It didn't apply to gay marriage because there were plenty of places gay marriage was illegal.

Ok, then I've jumped ahead of myself. This lawsuit comes up two years ago before the ruling. What are your thoughts then?

[subego]

Clearly within the purview of state's rights. Just like gay marriage was.

[The Final Dakar]

Okay. Thanks.

[The Final Dakar]

Court: Baker who refused gay wedding cake can't cite beliefs

A suburban Denver baker who wouldn't make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple cannot cite his religious beliefs in refusing them service because it would lead to discrimination, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.

After the ruling, Phillips faces fines if he refuses to make wedding cakes for gay couples. Phillips has maintained that he has no problem serving gay people at his store but says that making a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding would violate his Christian beliefs.

His attorneys have said they would consider appealing up to the U.S. Supreme Court. They said there are bound to be more cases where businesses' religious convictions clash with gay rights.

[The Final Dakar]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/us...kim-davis.html

[The Final Dakar]

Time to panic, chongo?
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/16...-heterosexual/

[Cap'n Tightpants]

I would have thought it was ~75%, on a sliding scale almost no one is 100% hetero.

[subego]

So, how does one account for the differences in the two categories?

I think you can account for some of the disparity in attitudes present in the overall population towards false reporting not being present in the youth population, but not enough to account for this big a difference.

Which kinda shoots down the argument it's solely genetic. If it was, you'd have more stable numbers.

In other words, it's Chongo's worst nightmare... we're making people gay.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

In other words, it's Chongo's worst nightmare... we're making people gay.

You discount one thing – between shame and fear of retribution what may just be happening is: We're making people comfortable enough to admit they're gay.

Which, sadly, for some people, is almost as bad.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I would have thought it was ~75%, on a sliding scale almost no one is 100% hetero.

I think a lot of people would have trouble admitting they're not 100% hetero. The age disparity in reporting either hints at this or a frankly uplifting amount of kids admitting they haven't found who they are quite yet and aren't afraid to say so.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You discount one thing – between shame and fear of retribution what may just be happening is: We're making people comfortable enough to admit they're gay.

Which, sadly, for some people, is almost as bad.

I didn't discount it. That's what "disparity in the attitudes about false reporting" means.

Can it account for this big a difference?

[The Final Dakar]

I doubt it. Then again estimations of the % of gay people are all over the place. As low as 2% to as high as 10%.