Republican tell Boy Scouts stay no-gay

Originally posted by whodey
Again, why should sex be discussed at all in boy scouts?

It's not that they're not allowed to talk to the boys about homosexuality. It's that they're not allowed to BE a homosexual.

No one is disputing that's their right as a private organization. We're just calling a spade a spade, and a bigot a bigot.

Originally posted by JS357
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.

That's not the issue because that's not being disputed.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
That's not the issue because that's not being disputed.

The issue is that some people think that gay scout leaders and their troops of the same persuasion will try to corrupt the non gay members. Who wants to send their kids off on a camping trip with homosexuals? I am not saying this is my viewpoint but that is what others will think. If they stay no gay there will not be a loss of membership possibly?

Originally posted by sasquatch672
It's a private club. Private clubs are allowed to set standards. The members of that club may choose to adjust the conditions of membership. It certainly appears as if that's happening with the Boy Scouts.

I'm sure part of the motivation was to prevent a Jerry Sandusky situation.

The Boy Scouts are hiding a sex abuse and coverup scandal. The media (left and right) is helping them hide a lot of details. :'(

Originally posted by moon1969

[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 America shouldn’t soften its strict no-gays membership policy, and suggested that bending the organization to the whims of popular culture is wrong.

[quote] [He] made it ...[text shortened]...
http://www.chron.com/news/article/Perry-says-Boy-Scouts-should-keep-no-gay-policy-4245711.php[/b]

Enough on the gays already...they're not bothering anyone.

Originally posted by whodey
Again, why should sex be discussed at all in boy scouts?

One of the topics in the BSA Family Life merit badge syllabus is "Understanding the growing-up process and how the body changes, and making responsible decisions dealing with sex." Another is "A crisis situation within your family." On the latter, there is more than one type of crisis that could involve sex. If the BSA is going to deal as responsibly with gay issues as it does with family issues, gay issues will be on the table in this badge program.

http://www.boyscouttrail.com/boy-scouts/meritbadges/family-life-merit-badge.asp

Originally posted by JS357
One of the topics in the BSA Family Life merit badge syllabus is "Understanding the growing-up process and how the body changes, and making responsible decisions dealing with sex." Another is "A crisis situation within your family." On the latter, there is more than one type of crisis that could involve sex. If the BSA is going to deal as responsibly with gay ...[text shortened]... program.

http://www.boyscouttrail.com/boy-scouts/meritbadges/family-life-merit-badge.asp

Responsible is in the eye of the beholder.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
It's not that they're not allowed to talk to the boys about homosexuality. It's that they're not allowed to BE a homosexual.

No one is disputing that's their right as a private organization. We're just calling a spade a spade, and a bigot a bigot.

Excluding atheists, agnostics, and homosexuals in no way implies that Scouting is bigoted. 'Bigot' means showing hatred or intolerance. Scouts are not trained to show hatred or intolerance towards anyone, homosexuals included.

Someone can come to the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong in general because they think it is harmful or counter-productive or limiting for the individuals doing it. That doesn't make them a bigot unless they show hatred or intolerance towards those individuals in some way.

Up until now, BSA has asserted that, in the context of their private club, they choose to promote certain behaviors and ideals (as many clubs do), and associating with people who hold opposing views would distract and detract from that.

Originally posted by spruce112358
Excluding atheists, agnostics, and homosexuals in no way implies that Scouting is bigoted.

I would disagree. The fact that their exclusion is based on idiotic and false stereotypes is bigotted in itself.

By definition a bigot is "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices".

Even if you don't think it fits that definition, it's most definitely a policy based on prejudice and that's good enough for it to be rejected and vocally objected to.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I would disagree. The fact that their exclusion is based on idiotic and false stereotypes is bigotted in itself.

By definition a bigot is "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices".

Even if you don't think it fits that definition, it's most definitely a policy based on prejudice and that's good enough for it to be rejected and vocally objected to.

"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices".

So, do you think that government ought to define and eliminate bigots? First amendment freedom of speech isn't there to protect speech everyone agrees with.

I'm pretty sure you hold opinions and prejudices against right wing thinking. Does that constitute bigotry?

Originally posted by normbenign
"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices".

So, do you think that government ought to define and eliminate bigots? First amendment freedom of speech isn't there to protect speech everyone agrees with.

I'm pretty sure you hold opinions and prejudices against right wing thinking. Does that constitute bigotry?

So, do you think that government ought to define and eliminate bigots?

No. When did I say that?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I would disagree. The fact that their exclusion is based on idiotic and false stereotypes is bigotted in itself.

By definition a bigot is "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices".

Even if you don't think it fits that definition, it's most definitely a policy based on prejudice and that's good enough for it to be rejected and vocally objected to.

So you think that only your beliefs should be applied. Got it.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
[b]So, do you think that government ought to define and eliminate bigots?

No. When did I say that?[/b]

Just wanted to clarify. How about my other question? Could you be bigoted by your own definition?

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
I agree they should not even ask, but also neither gays nor straights should have to go out of their way to hide their sexuality from the organization.

I agree they should be able to do as they please, just as we should be able to speak out against bigoted policies.

You're right. Standards are for bigots.

I think a 400-pound woman should just be given a Ranger scroll, an M-4, and a parachute. I think her inclusion on your next mission should be mandatory.

After all, everybody should get a trophy, and everybody should feel good about themselves. Excellence and the mission be damned.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
You're right. Standards are for bigots.

I think a 400-pound woman should just be given a Ranger scroll, an M-4, and a parachute. I think her inclusion on your next mission should be mandatory.

😀😀😀 LMAO