Republican tell Boy Scouts stay no-gay

Originally posted by sasquatch672
So, for one, I did not say that gay people were not normal. .

These are your exact words which I quoted
Most normal people who aren't gay ...

Originally posted by FMF
Would you support the Boy Scouts if they sought to exclude Jews or Chinese Americans from their membership?

That is a ludicrous comparison. As if ethnicity and sexual orientation are equal or even parallel.

Originally posted by normbenign
That is a ludicrous comparison. As if ethnicity and sexual orientation are equal or even parallel.

So this means you would criticize the Boy Scouts if they sought to exclude Jews or Chinese Americans from their membership, yes?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

This evaluation would seem to lead to rather counterintuitive conclusions. For instance, as a not unsurprising consequence of recent history, there continues to exist much ethnic hostility between Croats, Serbs and Bosniaks, who are generally physically indistinguishable from each other. Because a Serb could, if necessary, pass as a Croat, the implication of your argument is that a Croat who discriminated against Chinese would be doing something worse than a Croat who discriminated against Serbs. I find that implication somewhat odd.

While a person's sexual orientation sometimes changes over the course of his or her life, it seems odd to say that "people sometimes change" their sexual orientation as if they might make a decision to do so in the way that one might make a decision to renounce or accept a religion. People may, of course, choose to change their sexual behaviour, which is a different matter. But to say that a person chooses to change his or her sexual orientation seems akin to saying that a man might choose, say, to change his tastes and enjoy a particular food.

Let's imagine that I don't like fish. If I believe it's healthier for me than meat, or if I believe that fishing methods are less cruel than farming methods, or I'm served it by a friend and don't want to be rude, I could choose to eat it. If I eat it often enough, I might even get to like it. But at no point could I simply choose to like it.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Another case to consider - in Hindu India, members of the dalit ("untouchable" ) class face ongoing prejudice and discrimination despite the fact that they are not physically distinguishable from members of higher castes. Similar discrimination still exists in Japan against the outcaste burakumin group.

It's possible for members of both these groups to 'pass', but they can't change their caste status. How would you feel this form of discrimination compares with discrimination on matters of race, religion and sexuality?

Originally posted by spruce112358
Would you support the Catholic Church if they excluded atheists from their membership?

no way they would get rid of their core constituency!

The post that was quoted here has been removed

So that's why most boys love Catholic girls!

Originally posted by normbenign
That is a ludicrous comparison. As if ethnicity and sexual orientation are equal or even parallel.

Why shouldn't an organization be able to exclude people on race or ethnicity? Any private organization should be able to set its own standards and the government shouldn't try to infringe on privacy.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
Your daughter didn't want to join because she might have to play with lesbians?

No, because she doesn't agree with their morals. Why should people have to associate with immoral people if they don't want to?

Originally posted by Eladar
Why shouldn't an organization be able to exclude people on race or ethnicity?

Because it is unfair.
How would you feel if your race was in the minority and you were
excluded from joining any club or association you wanted to?