popsjumper 2 #101 February 9, 2013 Quote Maybe, the Morally Straight portion. This is an organization that was started with values that they feel the Bible espoused. It's a private entity, so why would those that don't agree with the premise want to join? Finally, some clear thinking. Furthermore, why must a private organization bow to the greedy wants of anyone? Because, "We want what you have and we're gonna whine and cry until you give it to us." Sadly, that ploy works. The blind "politically correct" folks riding on the bandwagon ensure that.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #102 February 9, 2013 Quote Finally, some clear thinking. Furthermore, why must a private organization bow to the greedy wants of anyone? Because, "We want what you have and we're gonna whine and cry until you give it to us." Sadly, that ploy works. The blind "politically correct" folks riding on the bandwagon ensure that. I'm all about free association. I don't think the boy scouts should be forced by the courts to change their membership policies. However, I'm a Eagle Scout. I'm part of "them" who thinks their policy is wrong. The private organization doesn't have to change. However private organizations are not immune to market pressure and not immune to changing social sensibilities. If the leadership of BSA continue to ignore people inside and outside their organizations they will find themselves increasingly irrelevant and marginalized. I think that would be a shame because Boy Scouts were an important part of my maturation process and I believe the Boy Scouts still have a lot to offer."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #103 February 9, 2013 >Furthermore, why must a private organization bow to the greedy wants of anyone? They shouldn't. Nor should a bigoted, homophobic organization have any right to be "protected" against its own members who want it to change. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #104 February 9, 2013 Foolish of anyone to think that gays are not already a big part of the boy scouts.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #105 February 9, 2013 Quote Foolish of anyone to think that gays are not already a big part of the boy scouts. OK, you have a point there. Fortunately, there's no "other organization" with that kid of manifest hypochrisy. Can a non-Catholic criticize the Catholic Church's managing hierarchy for all the really rotten, harmful, hypocritical things they've done? I say yes, just as much as I can criticize my neighbor who beats his wife. Of course, the criticism surely resonates when it comes from the Catholic laity, or even the occasional priest, nun or brother with some guts. Similarly, someone outside the Scouts still has the right to openly call-out its more Neanderthal policies for the scorn they deserve. Having said, that, criticism from the life-membership at large surely resonates. And for the record, I, too, am a former Boy Scout. And just like, for example, Perry's fellow Texan, Masterrigger, said up-thread, I (as Perry's fellow former Boy Scout) also find Perry to be an embarrassment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,610 #106 February 9, 2013 QuoteOh, you missed that Grandma Moses probably mentioned it,too Is Grandma Moses the subject of the thread? No? Then she's pretty fuckin' irrelevant, ain't she? QuoteOh...dealing with the lame-brained is tough. I'll be more specific for you: Nobody in this thread mentioned... OK genius: show me where the subject of discussion in this thread is the opinion of a DZ.com poster. Go ahead, try it. Meanwhile, I can conclusively prove to you that the subject of the thread is the opinion of Rick Perry on Scouts and gays. Wait for it, here it is, it's the title of the thread. I don't know why you find that difficult to grasp. Now - what was my post about? It was about the opinions of Rick Perry on Scouts and gays, as quoted in the article in the OP. The argument that it is left field because no-one had yet picked up on it is absolutely ludicrous. It involves the central premise of the thread. How can you not understand that?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,610 #107 February 9, 2013 Quote They have common sense. Who does? QuoteYou're reaching out saying, "Gimme, gimme, gimme what you have because I want it." Actually I'm not, because I'm not gay. But I am capable of recognising discrimination even when it's not directed at myself. Fancy that. Just out of interest, did you have a problem with the first black people who wanted to sit at the same salad bar as the white folks? Did you have a problem with them saying "Gimme gimme gimme what you have"? QuoteI dunno. So you're not bothered about why they're intolerant of gays, only about why other's are intolerant of their intolerance? Why is that? QuoteJust what is your point in all of this anyway. You've said nothing about that. Maybe that the Scout group I was part of had at least one gay guy in, and wasn't destroyed or even made different to any other Scout group. Maybe that the Venture Scouts I was involved with had (I found out later) a gay leader, and was likewise left miraculously intact and just as good as it otherwise would have been. Maybe, just maybe, it's that the portions of the Scouts' management that are maintaining the exclusion of gays are divisive, intolerant stone age relics who are no better than the racist perpetrators of the Jim Crow era. Maybe it's something like that.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #108 February 11, 2013 Quote I don't think the boy scouts should be forced by the courts to change their membership policies. However, I'm a Eagle Scout. I'm part of "them" who thinks their policy is wrong. Quote One of many, yes. QuoteThe private organization doesn't have to change. However private organizations are not immune to market pressure and not immune to changing social sensibilities. Hence the whining and crying ploy. It works! Changing social sensibilities being so multifarious, nebulous and dynamic, YOUR social sensibilities may not be the same as mine. QuoteIf the leadership of BSA continue to ignore people inside and outside their organizations they will find themselves increasingly irrelevant and marginalized. So, regardless of the validity of the whining and crying issue, they will have to change their ways to meet the demands of the protesters, or, as you say, "they will find themselves increasingly irrelevant and marginalized"? Yes, it is what it is in today's world. And yet, when the protesters are whining and crying about an issue that goes counter to YOUR sensibilities.......? QuoteI think that would be a shame because Boy Scouts were an important part of my maturation process and I believe the Boy Scouts still have a lot to offer. Of course, yes. If they went under, who gets the finger? IMO, the busy-body, you-gotta-live-like-I-say, whining and crying bozos and those who have no earthly interest in it other than it's easy to jump on the bandwagon.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,610 #109 February 11, 2013 QuoteHence the whining and crying ploy. It works! Damn straight. That Martin Luther King sure could bitch, eh? QuoteIMO, the busy-body, you-gotta-live-like-I-say, whining and crying bozos So, the factions of the Boy Scouts leadership who think everyone needs to conform to their 'lifestyle'. Agreed.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davjohns 1 #110 February 11, 2013 Mmmmm... Keep in mind that the BSA is a private organization. I don't see why they can't regulate their membership as they choose. I continue to thing that there is nothing wrong with gay Scout Leaders. I think people are confusing gay with pedophile. But, I support any organization's right to affiliate with whomever it chooses. If there is a reason they don't want me in their organization, I don't care to be a part of their organization.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,610 #111 February 11, 2013 QuoteKeep in mind that the BSA is a private organization. I know. But it is their stance (as re-iterated by Gov. Perry) that the gay lifestyle is incompatible with American values and contributes to the breakdwn of society. If anyone is saying "you should live like us" it is them. Quote I don't see why they can't regulate their membership as they choose. They can, but that doesn't mean it's a stance that should be supported. Simple way of thinking about it: substitute gay with black, then ask who's in the right? QuoteI continue to thing that there is nothing wrong with gay Scout Leaders. I think people are confusing gay with pedophile. But, I support any organization's right to affiliate with whomever it chooses. If there is a reason they don't want me in their organization, I don't care to be a part of their organization. Two points: first, 'they' are not the organisation. 'They' are a number of people who currently have influence over the official position of the organisation. At some point in the future you can guarantee that there will be more of 'them' who believe gay people should be accepted into the organisation. That point can come sooner or later. Second, going back again to the civil rights struggle, what if black people in the south just accepted any entity that wanted to discriminate against them? "Hell, I didn't want to sit at that bar anyway". What then?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davjohns 1 #112 February 11, 2013 Aren't you doing the very thing that you accuse them of? You are saying they have to accept something they don't want to. You are insisting they have to live the way you want them to.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,610 #113 February 11, 2013 QuoteAren't you doing the very thing that you accuse them of? You are saying they have to accept something they don't want to. Nope. If they want to come and play in my yard they're quite welcome. I'm saying that opening up their organisation is the right thing to do. QuoteYou are insisting they have to live the way you want them to. Address the question I asked in the last post: substitute gay with black and ask yourself who's in the right. If there was a thread criticising the KKK* for being racist would anyone be saying 'You're trying to force them to live your way!'? It would be self evident nonsense, would it not? (In fairness. imagine the part of the KKK that holds BBQs with white supremacist country music playing, not the part that kills people.)Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,602 #114 February 11, 2013 Ya know, the barbecue-eating KKK who believe in white supremacy (but don't actually do anything about it) can believe whatever they want. It's the exercising institutional power according to their belief in white supremacy that is against the law (and, at least according to my worldview, wrong). But if they want to eat BBQ with other narrow-eyed morons, who am I to say I actually want to crash their party? On the other hand, the Boy Scouts, while a private organization, are set firmly enough into the child-developmental fabric that they're almost institutional, and there's the fight. Personally, as an organization, I think that they best first step would have been the one they were considering, of letting individual troops or regions decide locally, rather than dictating nationally. Then the pressure would devolve to more local ones. But yeah, it's a private organization, just as the Augusta Country Club was. "Equality" isn't (or shouldn't be) about dictating roles. It's about making them available to people who might not have found them so before. Big, big difference. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 3 #115 February 11, 2013 Quote If there is a reason they don't want me in their organization, I don't care to be a part of their organization. That would be the opposite of the Groucho Principle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davjohns 1 #116 February 11, 2013 OK. To address your (loaded) question, I think anyone who is excluded from an organization should feel free to form their own and show the previous organization up. I think that was true with blacks just as it is with gay people today. However, you are comparing apples and oranges. Gays today have a tough fight in some quarters, but it is completely unlike what blacks faced in the South at one time. That's why I describe your question as loaded. To Wendy's point (and I think she and I are mostly in agreement), I considered the education of youth aspect. The problem is, parents decide to put their children in BSA. If we tell them that their decision is wrong and their children should be trained another way...wow. We already do this to some extent in public schools. We're going to go into private organizations next? How far is that from telling churches what they can teach? It's a step that I don't care to take. If the parents want to put pressure on BSA, fine. If contributors want to exert pressure, fine. Personally, I don't want to tell them how to run their organization. I don't want to tell gay people how to live their lives. I think what comes around goes around. I don't want anyone telling me how to live my life, who to associate with, or how to have sex. So, I leave others alone as well. Do I think BSA is off the mark? Sure. Do I think they will eventually change? Yup. Is it my place to force them to my worldview? Not a chance.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davjohns 1 #117 February 11, 2013 I know there is a great one-liner in there. I love Groucho. I just recognize the reference. Help me out. Ha! Found it! Basically, "I don't want to be a part of any organization that will accept me as a member". I like it.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 3 #118 February 11, 2013 QuoteI know there is a great one-liner in there. I love Groucho. I just recognize the reference. Help me out. "I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member". -Groucho Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davjohns 1 #119 February 11, 2013 I out-drew you, pardner. Good thing I'm firing blanks. lolI know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 3 #120 February 11, 2013 QuoteI out-drew you, pardner. Good thing I'm firing blanks. lol Did not. you posted your edit (& appended to an existing) & I posted my post at 8:50. It's a draw. What'll we use as a tie-breaker? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davjohns 1 #121 February 11, 2013 Damn. I was hoping you wouldn't notice that. Thumb war?I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,602 #122 February 11, 2013 Wesson oil. I'll video Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davjohns 1 #123 February 11, 2013 Well, it IS a thread on gay issues.... But I'll have to pass.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 3 #124 February 11, 2013 Quote Wesson oil. I'll video Wendy P. you're such a tramp. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davjohns 1 #125 February 11, 2013 Actually, I think she was hoping you and I were.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 5 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
jakee 1,610 #109 February 11, 2013 QuoteHence the whining and crying ploy. It works! Damn straight. That Martin Luther King sure could bitch, eh? QuoteIMO, the busy-body, you-gotta-live-like-I-say, whining and crying bozos So, the factions of the Boy Scouts leadership who think everyone needs to conform to their 'lifestyle'. Agreed.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #110 February 11, 2013 Mmmmm... Keep in mind that the BSA is a private organization. I don't see why they can't regulate their membership as they choose. I continue to thing that there is nothing wrong with gay Scout Leaders. I think people are confusing gay with pedophile. But, I support any organization's right to affiliate with whomever it chooses. If there is a reason they don't want me in their organization, I don't care to be a part of their organization.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,610 #111 February 11, 2013 QuoteKeep in mind that the BSA is a private organization. I know. But it is their stance (as re-iterated by Gov. Perry) that the gay lifestyle is incompatible with American values and contributes to the breakdwn of society. If anyone is saying "you should live like us" it is them. Quote I don't see why they can't regulate their membership as they choose. They can, but that doesn't mean it's a stance that should be supported. Simple way of thinking about it: substitute gay with black, then ask who's in the right? QuoteI continue to thing that there is nothing wrong with gay Scout Leaders. I think people are confusing gay with pedophile. But, I support any organization's right to affiliate with whomever it chooses. If there is a reason they don't want me in their organization, I don't care to be a part of their organization. Two points: first, 'they' are not the organisation. 'They' are a number of people who currently have influence over the official position of the organisation. At some point in the future you can guarantee that there will be more of 'them' who believe gay people should be accepted into the organisation. That point can come sooner or later. Second, going back again to the civil rights struggle, what if black people in the south just accepted any entity that wanted to discriminate against them? "Hell, I didn't want to sit at that bar anyway". What then?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #112 February 11, 2013 Aren't you doing the very thing that you accuse them of? You are saying they have to accept something they don't want to. You are insisting they have to live the way you want them to.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,610 #113 February 11, 2013 QuoteAren't you doing the very thing that you accuse them of? You are saying they have to accept something they don't want to. Nope. If they want to come and play in my yard they're quite welcome. I'm saying that opening up their organisation is the right thing to do. QuoteYou are insisting they have to live the way you want them to. Address the question I asked in the last post: substitute gay with black and ask yourself who's in the right. If there was a thread criticising the KKK* for being racist would anyone be saying 'You're trying to force them to live your way!'? It would be self evident nonsense, would it not? (In fairness. imagine the part of the KKK that holds BBQs with white supremacist country music playing, not the part that kills people.)Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,602 #114 February 11, 2013 Ya know, the barbecue-eating KKK who believe in white supremacy (but don't actually do anything about it) can believe whatever they want. It's the exercising institutional power according to their belief in white supremacy that is against the law (and, at least according to my worldview, wrong). But if they want to eat BBQ with other narrow-eyed morons, who am I to say I actually want to crash their party? On the other hand, the Boy Scouts, while a private organization, are set firmly enough into the child-developmental fabric that they're almost institutional, and there's the fight. Personally, as an organization, I think that they best first step would have been the one they were considering, of letting individual troops or regions decide locally, rather than dictating nationally. Then the pressure would devolve to more local ones. But yeah, it's a private organization, just as the Augusta Country Club was. "Equality" isn't (or shouldn't be) about dictating roles. It's about making them available to people who might not have found them so before. Big, big difference. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #115 February 11, 2013 Quote If there is a reason they don't want me in their organization, I don't care to be a part of their organization. That would be the opposite of the Groucho Principle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #116 February 11, 2013 OK. To address your (loaded) question, I think anyone who is excluded from an organization should feel free to form their own and show the previous organization up. I think that was true with blacks just as it is with gay people today. However, you are comparing apples and oranges. Gays today have a tough fight in some quarters, but it is completely unlike what blacks faced in the South at one time. That's why I describe your question as loaded. To Wendy's point (and I think she and I are mostly in agreement), I considered the education of youth aspect. The problem is, parents decide to put their children in BSA. If we tell them that their decision is wrong and their children should be trained another way...wow. We already do this to some extent in public schools. We're going to go into private organizations next? How far is that from telling churches what they can teach? It's a step that I don't care to take. If the parents want to put pressure on BSA, fine. If contributors want to exert pressure, fine. Personally, I don't want to tell them how to run their organization. I don't want to tell gay people how to live their lives. I think what comes around goes around. I don't want anyone telling me how to live my life, who to associate with, or how to have sex. So, I leave others alone as well. Do I think BSA is off the mark? Sure. Do I think they will eventually change? Yup. Is it my place to force them to my worldview? Not a chance.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #117 February 11, 2013 I know there is a great one-liner in there. I love Groucho. I just recognize the reference. Help me out. Ha! Found it! Basically, "I don't want to be a part of any organization that will accept me as a member". I like it.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #118 February 11, 2013 QuoteI know there is a great one-liner in there. I love Groucho. I just recognize the reference. Help me out. "I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member". -Groucho Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #119 February 11, 2013 I out-drew you, pardner. Good thing I'm firing blanks. lolI know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #120 February 11, 2013 QuoteI out-drew you, pardner. Good thing I'm firing blanks. lol Did not. you posted your edit (& appended to an existing) & I posted my post at 8:50. It's a draw. What'll we use as a tie-breaker? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #121 February 11, 2013 Damn. I was hoping you wouldn't notice that. Thumb war?I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,602 #122 February 11, 2013 Wesson oil. I'll video Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #123 February 11, 2013 Well, it IS a thread on gay issues.... But I'll have to pass.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #124 February 11, 2013 Quote Wesson oil. I'll video Wendy P. you're such a tramp. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #125 February 11, 2013 Actually, I think she was hoping you and I were.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
