Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

MindFad · May 21, 2003, 01:05 AM

I think it's pathetic and ridiculous, too, to not allow homosexuals and atheists to be a part of the Scouts. But they are a private ogranization, right? And they can let in or throw out whoever they like, right? They probably are a biggoted bunch of ****wads, but what are you gonna do? Bicker on a message board? Write your Congressman. Maybe a new groupd should be started, some Scout competition perhaps? Start a new club.

I don't agree with the Scouts at all, so don't come in branding me a biggot. But what can you do?

Swiss Bob · May 21, 2003, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by kmkkid:
My, my, arnt we biggoted tonight? And how may I ask do you know a gay guy when you see one? Because of stereotypes right? Yeah, I thought so.

Loser.

Yeah. I'm bigotted. I must be. I don't mind going to gay bars for a late drink. I know gay people who take me to such places. I live in a city with a democratically elected openly gay mayor. We're all fully bigotted around here.

Are you actually seriously telling me that you can't pick a gay guy from a straight guy with greater than 90% accuracy? Every guy I know, whether straight or gay, can do this.

Maybe it's stereotypes, maybe it's not. But it seems to work pretty well. Are you being bigotted if you can tell a Yale/Harvard guy from a redneck just by looking at them? Would you be using stereotypes to make your decision in that choice?

Try not to use the word "bigot", or any derivative thereof, if you're displaying the said feature yourself. FFS, you can't even spell the word.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · May 21, 2003, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by Swiss Bob:
No, sorry dude. You can't have one rule for yourselves and another rule for everyone else. Equality doesn't work like that.

If you have gay marches, you must be prepared for people to want to have straight marches. If you have pro-black organisations, you must be prepared for people to have pro-white organisations.

You can't have one rule for yourselves and another rule for everyone else.
You can't spout "equality" whilst denying other people the right to do what you do.

When did I say you couldn't have a straight march? Go nuts, but there is no point to it other then you are jealous of gay people are are trying to come out on top.

Swiss Bob · May 21, 2003, 01:47 AM

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
gay people are are trying to come out on top.

I'm sure you meant to say "gay people who are trying to be treated equally" there. Right?

simonjames · May 21, 2003, 01:54 AM

not all gay people are 'tops' - some are 'bottoms' and others are 'versatile'.

personally I don't see the need for pride marches - they're fairly boring and tend to be a freak show

forkies · May 21, 2003, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by simonjames:
...personally I don't see the need for pride marches - they're fairly boring and tend to be a freak show

people that say this have no idea what it's like to have society tell you that you're a "freak" and will burn in hell for loving someone of the same sex.

after suppressing their sexuality for such a long time, these people are simply celebrating what every other person has--the right to be themselves.

**** you, ass.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · May 21, 2003, 02:29 AM

Originally posted by Swiss Bob:
I'm sure you meant to say "gay people who are trying to be treated equally" there. Right?

What I mean is that by having a straight march people are just wanting to come out as above them.

MindFad · May 21, 2003, 02:29 AM

Maybe he meant the people who dress up in crazy costumes, and such. It didn't come off to me like gay = freak.

simonjames · May 21, 2003, 03:10 AM

forkies - I was going to say that you're a twit but instead I'll opt for ignorant

I have been to plenty (and I mean *plenty*) of gay pride marches and sydney mardi gras and I can tell you they become very boring.

"jeez, lets walk down the street waving gay flags showing off our body piercings to all the straight gawkers"

"mommy - look at the big drag queen with the moustache - he's dressed like a barbie doll"

thanks but I don't need to tell other people I feel fine about myself - maybe because I am hitting 40 - maybe 'cause I have never been in the closet - maybe 'cause I don't give a **** about other people's opinions

But I do give a damn when I can't go where I want without being heckled and I get denied basic rights like being able to nominate my partner as my superannuation beneficiary - thats an example of discrimination

As to the scouts - IMO they're fairly irrelevant to today's society. I was one once and if I had kids I don't think I'd be encouraging them to join the scouts

forkies · May 21, 2003, 03:27 AM

Originally posted by forkies:
...after suppressing their sexuality for such a long time, these people are simply celebrating what every other person has--the right to be themselves.

Originally posted by simonjames:
...maybe 'cause I have never been in the closet

exactly

undotwa · May 21, 2003, 06:14 AM

As a Catholic, I feel discrimination against persons of any sexual orientation as wrong, but really it's up to the organization.

I hold the view that gayness is a mental illness (isn't it great, these forums allow you to say whatever you want!). I'm not saying gay people are crazy, I just think that many parents might feel uncomfortable with gay boys on camp. Its kinda like a co-ed camp except sleeping on the same cabins.

maxelson · May 21, 2003, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by typoon:
Really? What governmental agency do they recieve funds from?

Ty- bad door to open.

Even a cursory glimpse into the issue reveals a TON of public connections from state and local to federal.
I follow this issue pretty closely.
Just a few months ago, there was a case brought before the Supreme Court in Ill concerning funding.
Another this year in FL.
Big one in NJ not too many years back (2000, I think).
Big one in Arizona a couple of years ago. All having to do with public funds supporting Scouting.
Not to mention, there is that whole Federal charter thing. The Federal Government supporting and endorsing a group which can discriminate openly? Hm. I'd say there are some issues there.

Let me know if I need to compile links.

deekay1 · May 21, 2003, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by undotwa:

I hold the view that gayness is a mental illness

you're wrong. period!

deekay1 · May 21, 2003, 08:32 AM

i don't think people are really talking about the boyscouts being gay or atheists (few 6-10 year olds are...), but their "leaders".

if these people are paid for what they are doing, then they are holding jobs.

that then would make it an "equal employment opportunity" issue, at which point any discrimination would be a vialotion of the law.
private organization, or not private.

typoon · May 21, 2003, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Nicko:
WOW racism is insidious indeed.

(racism/bigotry: same thing)

Why is that? A boy can't join the Girl Scouts if he wanted to, You can't attend an all women's school if you wanted (you probably could after a court fight), The PGA doesn't and shouldn't allow women if it doesn't want to. Yes it is racist but what about all these other organizations? If I run a business and decide I do not want certain Patrons I can so choose not the have them no matter how racist it maybe. It is the same for ANY private club/organization if they so desire not to have a group or groups join for one reason or another it's there choice and right like it or not.

typoon · May 21, 2003, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by n~s:
It's a fear thing. Scoutmasters usually take their troop out to the woods for days at a time. People are afraid to leave their kids with guardians who don't share their value system.

There's hothing wrong with being an athiest or a homosexual, but lots of parents wouldn't feel comfortable leaving their kids alone with one. They figure an athiest doesn't fear a god and will lack the same morals that a non-athiest claims to have. A lot of people think that homosexual also means pedophile and don't want to leave their kids alone with someone who might harm them. Neither of these assumptions are neccessarily true, but they're both common beliefs by a lot of people with kids who are interested in sending them to scouts.

So the Scouts can either try to make gay athiests happy or try to make the parents of most of their kids happy. Considering that their funding comes from the kids, who do you think they're going to listen to? If the parents feel strongly about it and make a case against the Scouts, you might see some change. The Scouts are private and aren't guaranteed any kind of funding. It doesn't make sense for them to alienate the people who support them financially.

I'm not saying it's right, just that it makes sense.

Very true. Then again if some Parents would get off there lazy arses and go on the trips they there shouldn't have to be a worry. I agree it is a fear issue. I would probably be less worried about leaving my kid with an atheist than I would with a Gay scout leader. Then again I would be going on the trip so it wouldn't too much of a problem for me.

OldManMac · May 21, 2003, 09:58 AM

Some of you can't seem to understand that the Scouts are not a private organization, despite what their charter says!! Do a little reading, get a little education, and maybe you might accidentally learn something! They receive support from governmental organizations!

They get money from governmental organizations!

They get support from governmental organizations!

Our tax dollars help support the boy scouts!

Do you get it now? They are NOT a private organization! Shall I go on?

zigzag · May 21, 2003, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by typoon:
If I run a business and decide I do not want certain Patrons I can so choose not the have them no matter how racist it maybe. It is the same for ANY private club/organization if they so desire not to have a group or groups join for one reason or another it's there choice and right like it or not.

If you run a business that is within the category of public accomodations, you cannot discriminate based on race. Only if your facility is truly private - i.e. not open to the general public - can you discriminate. See my earlier post.

Ozmodiar · May 21, 2003, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by kmkkid:
Wow, I wasnt aware of the fact that bars ID you AND ask your sexual preference before entering....

I'll go get the hose, cause your knee high in BS.

Chris

Anyone who can work "I'll go get the hose" into a sentence gets a thumbs up from me.

kmkkid · May 21, 2003, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by Swiss Bob:
Yeah. I'm bigotted. I must be. I don't mind going to gay bars for a late drink. I know gay people who take me to such places. I live in a city with a democratically elected openly gay mayor. We're all fully bigotted around here.

Are you actually seriously telling me that you can't pick a gay guy from a straight guy with greater than 90% accuracy? Every guy I know, whether straight or gay, can do this.

Maybe it's stereotypes, maybe it's not. But it seems to work pretty well. Are you being bigotted if you can tell a Yale/Harvard guy from a redneck just by looking at them? Would you be using stereotypes to make your decision in that choice?

Try not to use the word "bigot", or any derivative thereof, if you're displaying the said feature yourself. FFS, you can't even spell the word.

Thanks for correcting my spelling, I'll try not to type so late at night...

Chris

daimoni · 12:03 PM

.

benb · May 21, 2003, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by kmkkid:
My, my, arnt we biggoted tonight? And how may I ask do you know a gay guy when you see one? Because of stereotypes right? Yeah, I thought so.

Loser.

Chris

There is nothing wrong with stereotypes. It is when you let stereotypes degrade into hate/fear/whathaveyou based on the stereotypes alone.

So what? I am pretty confidant that 90% of the time I could pick out the gay guy in a group of 10 after being around them for no more than 5 minutes? Does that make me a bigot? In no way. Definition of a bigot. I am not intolerant of you because I can pick you out of a group, I am just observant. Now if I picked you out, spit on your face and hit you with shoes, I would be a bigot.

simonjames · May 21, 2003, 05:56 PM

I hold the view that religious conviction is a mental illness and I am delighted to say that in the last one hundred years it is an illness that many people have been cured of.

Maybe one day it'll be like smallpox - only existing in controlled laboratories!!!

talisker · May 21, 2003, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by undotwa:
I hold the view that gayness is a mental illness (isn't it great, these forums allow you to say whatever you want!).

\

Even when you're wronger than wrong can be. It's perfectly valid to hold a view that you don't like gay people, or that you don't approve of their lifestyle and what they do. But to believe it's a mental illness is mindboggingly deranged in itself. It is a mental DIFFERENCE, in a similar way that highly creative people are different to highly logical people, but neither of these traits is an illness. Are you so unsure of your beliefs that you can't simply stand by them, you have to come up with laughable falsehoods to "justify" them?

Or were you being sarcastic, in which case, please ignore everything I've just said and accept my apology.

fireside · May 21, 2003, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by typoon:
The PGA doesn't and shouldn't allow women if it doesn't want to. Yes it is racist but what about all these other organizations?

actually the PGA does allow women. here you go if you want proof. its just that the PGA has high "standards" to let people play in the tournies. like, getting a good score on golf, and most women, probably, cant get those scores, seeing as they have the LPGA. im not saying the women are bad golfers, just that the PGA has higher qualifications than the LPGA.

Michael_Jackson · May 21, 2003, 11:17 PM

Severed Hand of Skywalker · May 22, 2003, 12:20 AM

I wonder what they are afraid of.

nonhuman · May 22, 2003, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
I wonder what they are afraid of.

That they'll like it.

macvillage.net · May 22, 2003, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by benb:
There is nothing wrong with stereotypes. It is when you let stereotypes degrade into hate/fear/whathaveyou based on the stereotypes alone.

So what? I am pretty confidant that 90% of the time I could pick out the gay guy in a group of 10 after being around them for no more than 5 minutes? Does that make me a bigot? In no way. Definition of a bigot. I am not intolerant of you because I can pick you out of a group, I am just observant. Now if I picked you out, spit on your face and hit you with shoes, I would be a bigot.

real true.

I can tell if someone is Asian. That doesn't make me a bigot. In fact I have several Asian friends, who I am actually very good friends with. But I Know they are asian (guess it's instinct).

IMHO the Boy Scounts are pushing their luck... now they are threating companies that refuse to donate or "sponsor" them... most companies can't anymore since that's offensive to homosexual employees...the boy scouts say since they won the case... they can't be discriminated against... and companies can't stop donating on that alone.

nonhuman · May 22, 2003, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
IMHO the Boy Scounts are pushing their luck... now they are threating companies that refuse to donate or "sponsor" them... most companies can't anymore since that's offensive to homosexual employees...the boy scouts say since they won the case... they can't be discriminated against... and companies can't stop donating on that alone.

That's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. If anything, the fact that they won the right to discriminate should enforce the fact that companies can 'discriminate' against them by not donating.

gadster · May 22, 2003, 09:03 AM

I was discouraged from joining the scouts, even though some of my friends were members. My Dad referred to them as the 'Hitler Youth'. At the time I thought he was an idiot, but now ? I'm not so sure.

I think a paramilitary organisation for young folks is probably not such a good idea, in the USA, let alone Pakistan.

Zimphire · May 22, 2003, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by forkies:
then

Not the same thing.

Zimphire · May 22, 2003, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by deekay1:
you're wrong. period!

You forgot the "IMHO"

V · May 22, 2003, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
I wonder what they are afraid of.

Change.

Zimphire · May 22, 2003, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by V:
Change.

Not afraid of change at all.

n~s · May 22, 2003, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by gadster:
I think a paramilitary organisation for young folks is probably not such a good idea, in the USA, let alone Pakistan.

I must have missed those days. Most of what I learned was how to tie a few knots and some basic first aid. We went camping and played football a lot. The closest think I remember to paramilitary training was knife safety and smashing a guy's face in once, an unfortunate accident during a full-contact game of capture-the-flag played against another troop at night during a camping trip. If that was training, it was unintentional...the scoutmasters didn't know about the game.

Too bad really, I would have loved playing with C4 when I was 15.

simonjames · May 22, 2003, 10:59 AM

ZIMP - its real amazing that you know all about their ideas - what is posirc?

You barely know yourselves and yet you're giving advice about otherpeople

Severed Hand of Skywalker · May 22, 2003, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by simonjames:
ZIMP - its real amazing that you know all about their ideas - what is posirc?

You barely know yourselves and yet you're giving advice about otherpeople

Does anyone care what Zimp says even after he replies to 5 posts in a row?

jcadam · May 22, 2003, 12:03 PM

What would it be like to be a gay troop leader for a bunch of teenage boys on a scouting trip? Dunno....

I try to imagine what it would be like for me to be a leader for a bunch of teenage girl scouts on a camping trip

...Heehee. erm, uh, no.. probably not a good idea.

Zimphire · May 22, 2003, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by simonjames:
ZIMP - its real amazing that you know all about their ideas - what is posirc?

They who?

You barely know yourselves and yet you're giving advice about otherpeople

I barely know myself? What a silly projection.

Originally posted by jcadam:
What would it be like to be a gay troop leader for a bunch of teenage boys on a scouting trip? Dunno....

I try to imagine what it would be like for me to be a leader for a bunch of teenage girl scouts on a camping trip

...Heehee. erm, uh, no.. probably not a good idea.

Oh but come on! It's all innocent!

Severed Hand of Skywalker · May 22, 2003, 12:09 PM

Zimphires word of the decade is "projection".

It gets you out of any bullsh�t

maxelson · May 22, 2003, 12:09 PM

Well, that brings up an interesting question: what IS the problem with a gay scout or scout leader?

qnxde · May 22, 2003, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by maxelson:
Well, that brings up an interesting question: what IS the problem with a gay scout or scout leader?

I think the problem of pedophile activity here is first and foremost in a lot of people's minds. Soccer mom type's mostly.

It is indeed unfortunate that a large portion of society equates being gay with being a pedophile, (the Catholic church hasn't done much to help this situation) or a member of NAMBLA. Sexual preference aside, I for one would like to think that any leadership figure we entrust with our childrens lives, whether gay or straight would be put through a VERY rigorous screening process before taking them away camping or climbing or what have you.

I don't know much about scouts, I went briefly some years ago and really didn't find it entertaining (maybe gay boys don't want to learn how to tie a sheepshank?, and my uniform itched, and the chants were stupid and it all seemed very silly to me.) but how are leaders chosen?

Zimphire · May 22, 2003, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
Zimphires word of the decade is "projection".

It gets you out of any bullsh�t

No, MacNN's silly debate tactic lately has been projection.

V · May 22, 2003, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, MacNN's silly debate tactic lately has been projection.

Oh yeah, and MacNN's silly debate tactic before was baseless accusations.

macvillage.net · May 22, 2003, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by nonhuman:
That's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. If anything, the fact that they won the right to discriminate should enforce the fact that companies can 'discriminate' against them by not donating.

IMHO I agree with you 1005%.

Their argument is that they have "moral and ethical reasons" as well as the fact that they are a private group. Companies don't have the right to discriminate according to the constitution.

Personally... I think private groups that discriminate against any group (relgious/sex/race) should automatically be catagorized as a hate group. At least then the laws are much clearer as far as corporate funding for a hate group (in most cases).

Boy Scouts, KKK, Black Panthers, PGA, Country clubs, whatever...

Have a firm policy against another group, you should be a categorized as a hate group.

Now it's reasonable to expect someone to be a certain religion in a house of worshop... but to hangout at a Jewish rec-center... you shouldn't have to prove that your penis was circumcized by a Rabi.

There will always be mens NBA, and Womens WNBA and other such situations.... that gives both sides a chance to shine (provided promoted equally)...

But excluding groups based on hate makes you a hate group... regardless of "were just humble christians".

my point is simply.. membership itself shouldn't be a right... Only plumbers should be in a plumbers union... Catholics can require that you be a catholic to be a part of the church.

Just like the company picnic is for employees and families... not for a guy walking down the street.

But discrimination based on a superficial trait that doesn't interfere with the capacity to participate is very different.

There is nothing that the Boy Scouts do that an Athiest or Homosexual can't do... and if there is... then they have a serious issue... they shouldn't be teaching vaginal sex while praying to young boys!

deekay1 · May 23, 2003, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You forgot the "IMHO"

mental illness n.

Any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors, such as infection or head trauma. Also called emotional illness, mental disease, mental disorder.

I hold the view that gayness is a mental illness

being gay doesn't constitute any "impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning". it's perfectly natural. no IMHO needed. period!

bracken · May 23, 2003, 04:39 AM

Originally posted by Eug:
Private organization or not, that policy is still out to lunch. They do have the right to exclude who they want (to a certain extent), but nonetheless if they keep up with this they risk either becoming marginalized or possibly eventually making themselves irrelevant completely. I would like to believe that their focus never was to be just a peripheral quasi-religious clique, although sometimes you've just got to wonder.

Yeah, they risk marginalizing themselves in San Francisco, Ivy League campuses, and other ultra-liberal sectors. Big whoop.

bracken · May 23, 2003, 04:40 AM

Originally posted by AB^2=BCxAC:
While we're letting private groups censure their members, why don't we let universities start saying they won't accept gays, athiests, and latinos, asians, and women. Oh that's right: it's called unfair discrimination and we have LAWS against it.

I assume you mean public universities, right? Well, public universities cannot because they're public. That's right, public. Private is private. Public is public. There's a difference.

I can't force you to welcome me inside your house. But you can't force me out of the public park.

bracken · May 23, 2003, 04:43 AM

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Have a firm policy against another group, you should be a categorized as a hate group.

So are companies categorized as a hate group because they don't want Lazy People working for them?