Originally posted by spruce112358Organisations have been defining "duty to God" for centuries to fit in with their own bigotry.
They define "duty to God" in part as not expressing atheist or agnostic beliefs, and not practicing homosexuality.
Once Upon a Time "duty to God" may have been not having black skin.
Originally posted by spruce112358If that were true they would say no sexual behaviour while at the club, which would be fair as it would apply to everyone equally.
I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but that's their club. They aren't trying to tell anyone what to do or how they should be outside of their club walls - but inside the club, that's the behavior they expect.
But they are not saying that, they are saying we want to impose our morality on you outside the club too.
And again if celibacy was a requirement of Scouts that would be fair if it applied across the board.
Originally posted by JS357Anybody can make suggestions. It's called freedom of speech. Plus, it is generally not illegal for a private club to exclude based on bigotry.
The issue is whether you of or me or Perry or Obama should have any more say in what this private organization does than anyone else, so long as they are within the law.
You and others are missing the point. The issue is not about the act of making suggestions, or legality.
The issue is that a Republican governor is vocally a bigot.
Originally posted by wolfgang59You seem to be somewhat intolerant of and hateful towards theists.
Organisations have been defining "duty to God" for centuries to fit in with their own bigotry.
Once Upon a Time "duty to God" may have been not having black skin.
I don't think being white was ever seen as a duty -- that would be impractical.
Originally posted by wolfgang59You'll have to point out where the BSA is trying to impose their morality on non-Scouts.
If that were true they would say no sexual behaviour while at the club, which would be fair as it would apply to everyone equally.
But they are not saying that, they are saying we want to impose our morality on you outside the club too.
And again if celibacy was a requirement of Scouts that would be fair if it applied across the board.
1 edit
Who you are more likely to vote for? A political leader who said what Republican Gov. Perry said below, or a political leader who said what President Obama said below?
Republican Texas Gov. Perry says Boy Scouts should keep no-gay policy
February 2, 2013
AUSTIN - Gov. Rick Perry said emphatically Saturday that the Boy Scouts of America shouldn’t soften its strict no-gays membership policy, and suggested that bending the organization to the whims of popular culture is wrong.
[He] made it very clear he’d like to keep gay members from joining. “Because gay activism is central to their lives, it would unavoidably be a topic of conversation within a Scout troop. This would distract from the mission of Scouting: character building . . ." Perry also questioned whether sexual preference is determined at birth or is a matter of personal preference . . .
“The radical homosexual movement seeks societal normalization of their sexual activity,” he [said].
---------------
Obama: Scouts should be open to gays and lesbians
February 3, 2013
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says the Boy Scouts of America should open its membership to gays and lesbians when its national executive board discusses the issue this week. Obama praised the scouts as "a great institution" that promotes young people, giving them lifelong leadership training and opportunities. During a pre-Super Bowl interview on CBS, he said "no one should be barred from that."
The Boy Scouts announced last week it was considering replacing its longstanding ban on gays with a policy to let troop sponsors make their own decision on the issue. The White House said last summer during the presidential campaign that Obama he opposed the Scouts' policy of excluding gays as members. Gay rights activists praised last week's announcement, while some conservative church groups expressed alarm.
Originally posted by moon1969[/b]Let's put it this way. Whatever way you go, I'm going the other way.
Who you are more likely to vote for? A political leader who said what Republican Gov. Perry said below, or a political leader who said what President Obama said below?[b]Republican Texas Gov. Perry says Boy Scouts should keep no-gay policy
February 2, 2013
AUSTIN - Gov. Rick Perry said emphatically Saturday that the Boy Scouts of Americ ...[text shortened]... last week's announcement, while some conservative church groups expressed alarm.
As a rule, people only get emotionally invested in issues that directly affect them. For example, gay rights. Most normal people who aren't gay probably hope that things go well for the gays, but wouldn't, for example, come on a chess website and beat the war drums over gay advocacy.
What is the nature of your gay fixation? Are you being honest with yourself? Especially given the information in the post that earned you a little break?
Originally posted by caissad4HELLO people !!
The Boy Scouts are hiding a sex abuse and coverup scandal. The media (left and right) is helping them hide a lot of details. :'(
Male scout leaders have been engaging in homosexual molestation with children. They then allowed these scout leaders to resign without reporting these crimes to law enforcement. Scoutmasters engaging in pedophilia. Boy Scouts being molested by their scoutmasters. There is written documentation which the Boy Scouts will have to release. They have no moral high ground. :'(:'(:'(:'(
Originally posted by sasquatch672You are projecting.
Let's put it this way. Whatever way you go, I'm going the other way.
As a rule, people only get emotionally invested in issues that directly affect them. For example, gay rights. Most normal people who aren't gay probably hope that things go well for the gays, but wouldn't, for example, come on a chess website and beat the war drums over gay adv ...[text shortened]... with yourself? Especially given the information in the post that earned you a little break?
2 edits
Originally posted by sasquatch672As, it seems, the only out gay poster on these boards, I can tell you that I have several straight friends who have done their bit in favour of gay rights - signing petitions, joining pro-gay rights organisations, etc.
As a rule, people only get emotionally invested in issues that directly affect them. For example, gay rights. Most normal people who aren't gay probably hope that things go well for the gays, but wouldn't, for example, come on a chess website and beat the war drums over gay advocacy.
Why? Because I'm their friend, so, although they are not gay, they do, in fact, have an emotional investment in the issue on the basis of their concern for my welfare.
That's why gay rights has become a cause with a fairly wide-ranging base of support. Only about five percent of us are gay - but if you add in all our parents, our siblings, our cousins and our friends, you're probably coming quite close to a majority.
1 edit
Originally posted by sasquatch672I don't think this is true at all. I have known plenty of non-homosexuals who actively support the advancement of gay rights and the dismantling of discrimination against homosexuals because for them it is an issue of justice that sits alongside other issues that form part of an overall outlook on life. I have done some work for gay advocacy groups without copping out and saying what does it have to do with me. If you start asking why people "beat the war drums over gay advocacy" on a forum like this, you might as well start asking why anyone comes onto a chess website and beats the war drums over anything.
Most normal people who aren't gay probably hope that things go well for the gays, but wouldn't, for example, come on a chess website and beat the war drums over gay advocacy.
You should not assume that people will be disinterested when it comes to important issues that don't affect them directly. Just because one is, say, not a woman who is a victim of domestic violence, does not mean one would not "beat the war drums" on a debate forum about seeing an end to domestic violence.