My email:
[qu0te]C0mment: Earlier t0day I was reading an article,
http://www.atheists.0rg/flash.line/bsa1.htm, that menti0ns that Levi Strauss
has withdrawn sp0ns0rship 0f B0y Sc0uting.  I am w0ndering the validity 0f
this statement.

Thank y0u
[/qu0te]

Their resp0nse:
[qu0te]Hi Tyler:

Thank y0u f0r taking the time t0 c0ntact us.  We appreciate y0u taking the
time t0 send us y0ur c0mments.

LS&C0. has an established c0mmitment t0 n0ndiscriminati0n p0licies and
practices based 0n the c0mpany's c0re values and respect f0r individual
freed0ms.  In acc0rdance with this phil0s0phy, 0ur F0undati0n pr0vides
supp0rt t0 0rganizati0ns which d0 n0t discriminate 0n the basis 0f age,
p0litical affiliati0n, race, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual
0rientati0n, 0r religi0us belief.

The B0y Sc0uts 0f America has c0nfirmed that their membership criteria is in
c0nflict with 0ur grant-making p0licies 0f n0ndiscriminati0n 0n the basis 0f
religi0us belief and sexual 0rientati0n.  Acc0rdingly, LS&C0. and the
F0undati0n can n0 l0nger fund the B0y Sc0uts 0f America.

We rec0gnize the valuable c0ntributi0ns B0y Sc0ut pr0grams have made t0
milli0ns 0f y0ung men.  It is n0t 0ur intenti0n 0r g0al t0 be punitive 0r t0
f0rce the B0y Sc0uts -- 0r any 0ther 0rganizati0n -- t0 change its p0licies
t0 c0mply with 0ur funding guidelines.  LS&C0. empl0yees are welc0me t0
v0lunteer their pers0nal time and res0urces t0 any 0rganizati0n they ch00se,
including the B0y Sc0uts 0f America.
Thank y0u 0nce again f0r c0ntacting us.  If y0u sh0uld need any additi0nal
assistance, please write back 0r call us at 1-800-USA-LEVI 0r visit
LeviStrauss.c0m.  0ur h0urs are M0nday thr0ugh Friday 6am - 4:30pm PST.

Be sure t0 als0 visit 0ur websites at levi.c0m, d0ckers.c0m, and
levistrausssignature.c0m where y0u can find 0ut up t0 date inf0rmati0n 0n
all 0f 0ur pr0ducts, as well as where y0u can purchase them.

Sincerely,

Charlyn
Levi Strauss & C0.
chafl02928346[/qu0te]


My Resp0nse:
[qu0te]But isn't LS&C0. discriminating against the B0y Sc0uts by dr0pping supp0rt 0f us because 0f 0ur beliefs.  The B0y Sc0uts deny membership t0 certain pe0ple because they d0 n0t meet 0ur m0ral standards.  Y0u rev0ked supp0rt because the B0y Sc0uts d0 n0t f0ll0w y0ur p0licies t0 receive supp0rt.  Is it really better t0 N0T supp0rt an 0rganizati0n that guides y0ung men int0 bec0ming respectable members 0f s0ciety than t0 withdraw the supp0rt because we d0 n0t believe in s0me pe0ple's way 0f life?  D0esn't that make LS&C0. a hyp0critical c0mpany?  D0es LS&C0. n0t want pr0ductive pe0ple in s0ciety?  W0uld LS&C0. rather have imm0ral pe0ple that missed 0ut 0n sc0uting because 0f lack 0f supp0rt fr0m c0rp0rati0n sp0ns0rs?  Did y0ur grant p0licies suddenly change that y0u had t0 dr0p supp0rt 0f near 5 milli0n y0ung men that are gr0wing pe0ple in the American s0ciety?

Get back t0 me when y0u get a chance.

[/qu0te]

[quote]We recognize the valuable contributions Boy Scout programs have made to
millions of young men. [/quote]

Yea... lets name a few shall we? Famous Scouts:
Henry "Hank" Aaron
Neil Armstrong (Eagle Scout)
James Brady (Eagle Scout) -- Press Sec. for Ronald Reagan
Walter Cronkite
William C. DeVries, M.D., (Eagle Scout) -- Transplanted first artificial heart
Gerald Ford (Eagle Scout)
Harrison Ford
Bill Gates
John F. Kennedy
James Lovell
William McCool -- Space Shuttle Columbia Pilot
Jim Morrison -- Rock and Roll Legend
Ellison Onizuka -- Space Shuttle Challanger Astronaut
H. Ross Perot
Nolan Ryan
Steven Spielberg
Mark Spitz -- Best Olympic Swimmer of All-Time?
Wallace Stegner (Eagle Scout) -- Pulitzer Prizer Winning Author
Joe Theisman
J. Stephen Fossett
Donald H. Rumsfeld (Eagle Scout)
Jimmy Buffett
Sam Walton (Eagle Scout)

LS & Co. never objected to the BSA excluding females from the activities, only when the BSA ruled that gay leaders would not be tolerated did they get in a fit over it.

BSA doesn't exclude females, women can join venture crews.  Venture crews are high adventure type co-ed groups that camp & whatnot alot

Just for sake of argument, replace Boy Scouts of America with Ku Klux Klan. One can argue that the KKK isn't creating "respectable members of society" but I'm sure some people in the south would say that they are. Even so, your argument is flawed. The BSA is not the only organization that can spawn "respectable members of society" nor does one need to join the BSA to become a "respectable member of society" yet you use this kind of rhetoric that is easily dismissed.

Levi Strauss has made an admirable move in cutting support to an organization because it doesn't live up to basic non-discrimination standards, even though that organization is a large and old one. They have pointed a flash light at how discrimination still to this day permeates America, and even how some Americans run to defend discrimination.

Adron, that is ridiculous. Would you want your son going to camp for a week with a gay adult leader? You can go ahead and pretend to be noble like you always do, but deep down we know you'd have a problem with that.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11007.msg105161#msg105161 date=1111612927]
Adron, that is ridiculous. Would you want your son going to camp for a week with a gay adult leader? You can go ahead and pretend to be noble like you always do, but deep down we know you'd have a problem with that.
[/quote]

Who cares that he's gay? Does that make him less of a man? Do his outdoor skills become null because he is gay? This is exactly the kind of thought that prevents society from progression. In my experience heterosexuals are more likely to force their way of life down one's throat than homosexuals. You know, I think you should become a psychic.  You have a way of predicting what people think, feel and believe. Although I don't know that you're good at it but what psychic is (re: John Edwards thread)?

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11007.msg105161#msg105161 date=1111612927]
Adron, that is ridiculous. Would you want your son going to camp for a week with a gay adult leader? You can go ahead and pretend to be noble like you always do, but deep down we know you'd have a problem with that.
[/quote]

Haha, would you want your son participating in any activity with a heterosexual female leader? We're not talking about allowing pedophiles to work with children...

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11007.msg105161#msg105161 date=1111612927]
Adron, that is ridiculous. Would you want your son going to camp for a week with a gay adult leader? You can go ahead and pretend to be noble like you always do, but deep down we know you'd have a problem with that.
[/quote]

I really couldn't care less.  Maybe if he was a pedophile, but just because someone is gay doesn't mean they are a pedophile.  I like women, that doesn't mean I would sleep with a 14 year old.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=11007.msg105188#msg105188 date=1111618413]

Who cares that he's gay? Does that make him less of a man? Do his outdoor skills become null because he is gay? This is exactly the kind of thought that prevents society from progression. In my experience heterosexuals are more likely to force their way of life down one's throat than homosexuals. You know, I think you should become a psychic.  You have a way of predicting what people think, feel and believe. Although I don't know that you're good at it but what psychic is (re: John Edwards thread)?
[/quote]

This just shows that you're completely ignorant of scouting. The purpose of scouting is not to teach outdoor survival skills and camping, although that is a big part. The purpose of scouting is to build character and good morals. Homosexuality is not a moral position in the opinion of Boy Scouting. Its a club, of sorts. It simply requires that leaders be not known to be gay. Its exactly the same as it is in the military. Don't ask, don't tell, if we find out, you're gone. Do you think the military is taking the wrong approach as well? Its a membership requirement. You have to be a Battle.Net elitist in order to get into Valhalla Legends, but you won't make the argument that that is a bad position will you? Dxo, we know you want to be politically correct and all, but stop sucking up and kissing so much fag ass.

Why are gay people necessarily of bad character?

I think your argument is transparently homophobic.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11007.msg105273#msg105273 date=1111642935]
This just shows that you're completely ignorant of scouting. The purpose of scouting is not to teach outdoor survival skills and camping, although that is a big part. The purpose of scouting is to build character and good morals. Homosexuality is not a moral position in the opinion of Boy Scouting. Its a club, of sorts. It simply requires that leaders be not known to be gay.
[/quote]
Yes I am completely ignorant of the BSA because I mentioned two things and that obviously shows my breadth of knowledge about the BSA. Well if homosexuality is not a moral position then discrimination against homosexuals is not a moral position in the opinion of LS & Co and therefore will not fund the BSA. That's totally acceptable.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11007.msg105273#msg105273 date=1111642935]
Its exactly the same as it is in the military. Don't ask, don't tell, if we find out, you're gone. Do you think the military is taking the wrong approach as well? Its a membership requirement.
[/quote]
Yes I do. Who cares if a guy is gay. As long as he doesn't affect morale or tries to put it down people's throat then there's no harm. What would you be so afraid of? Becoming gay?

Putting a homosexual in that situation is asking for trouble. Its the same reason that adult men are not allowed to be unsupervised on Girl Scout outings, its covering all the bases before something terrible could happen.

Ridiculous, unfounded, paranoid, homophobic nonsense.

Arta, its ridiculous. You'd think twice about it, deep down, you'd have a problem with it, and you know it. Stop taking the high and mighty approach of "Oh I know better," and face it.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=11007.msg105188#msg105188 date=1111618413]

Who cares that he's gay? Does that make him less of a man? Do his outdoor skills become null because he is gay?
[/quote]
I do, it is wrong in my belief.  I don't know about less, but it makes him different than most other men.  His outdoor skills aren't what is in question, his morality is.  Same goes for the atheists that can't join

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11007.msg105464#msg105464 date=1111728923]
Arta, its ridiculous. You'd think twice about it, deep down, you'd have a problem with it, and you know it. Stop taking the high and mighty approach of "Oh I know better," and face it.
[/quote]

No, I categorically, completely, totally wouldn't. I would have a problem with a sex offender in that role. Need I remind you that they're not the same thing?

To address a previous point:

[quote]
Its the same reason that adult men are not allowed to be unsupervised on Girl Scout outings, its covering all the bases before something terrible could happen.
[/quote]

On something like a camping trip, I don't think it's sensible for any adult to supervise children alone, and it's got nothing to do with sexuality or sexual behaviour. It's just simple good sense. What would happen if the adult were to be hurt? There should always be at least two supervising adults anyway.

There's no reasonable argument at all against gay people in this kind of role, so the only thing you can really say is "I'm homophobic and I don't like it". I'd have much more respect for that argument than for trying to pass off homophobia as concern for children. At least it would be honest.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11007.msg105464#msg105464 date=1111728923]
Arta, its ridiculous. You'd think twice about it, deep down, you'd have a problem with it, and you know it. Stop taking the high and mighty approach of "Oh I know better," and face it.
[/quote]

I'd be very happy about it. I think gay men take excellent care of children. Many seem a little more feminine, more caring about fashion, design etc, and that can't be wrong. Besides, if I know the man is gay and living out his sexuality with a mate, it's got to be less likely that he's a paedophile.

I'm not homophobic, I just don't believe in their way of living. 

How about multiple men supervising a girl scout camp out?...

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg105523#msg105523 date=1111767276]
I'm not homophobic, I just don't believe in their way of living. 
[/quote]

That's the same thing! "I'm not blind, I just can't see..."

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg105523#msg105523 date=1111767276]
How about multiple men supervising a girl scout camp out?...
[/quote]

I think having a woman around would be good. Sometimes girls need female assistance. Perhaps that wouldn't apply so much to women supervising boy scouts, but I'd still think it would be good to have a man around as well as women.

To be honest, this all just seems a little silly to me.

It isn't the same thing.  Phobias are fears of something, I don't fear gay people, I don't agree with how they live their life.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg105555#msg105555 date=1111779860]
It isn't the same thing.  Phobias are fears of something, I don't fear gay people, I don't agree with how they live their life.
[/quote]

But does it disturb you? I may not agree with your stock placements, but that won't disturb me if I'm talking to you or affect whether I'd like you to lead a boy scout camp.

I think it is wrong.

Also, that is all besides the point.  My original point is that they are discriminating against us.  They funded us then withdrew funding later on because of the fact that we do not allow gay/atheist people to join/lead.  Isn't that being hypocritical?  If they want us to accept everyone based on whatever views the joining person has, shouldn't they do the same?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg105586#msg105586 date=1111793317]
Also, that is all besides the point.  My original point is that they are discriminating against us.  They funded us then withdrew funding later on because of the fact that we do not allow gay/atheist people to join/lead.  Isn't that being hypocritical?  If they want us to accept everyone based on whatever views the joining person has, shouldn't they do the same?
[/quote]

Well, it's not really that strange. They'll accept everyone who in turn accepts everyone? They may have gay employees, suddenly you're not accepting all their employees. Why should they accept you if you're not accepting all of them?

Arta, stocks and your child are different.

Levis are nice jeans... they fit better than Lee jeans do.  :-X

[quote author=Adron link=topic=11007.msg105602#msg105602 date=1111800269]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg105586#msg105586 date=1111793317]
Also, that is all besides the point.  My original point is that they are discriminating against us.  They funded us then withdrew funding later on because of the fact that we do not allow gay/atheist people to join/lead.  Isn't that being hypocritical?  If they want us to accept everyone based on whatever views the joining person has, shouldn't they do the same?
[/quote]

Well, it's not really that strange. They'll accept everyone who in turn accepts everyone? They may have gay employees, suddenly you're not accepting all their employees. Why should they accept you if you're not accepting all of them?
[/quote]
But by saying they won't RE-except us unless we accept gay people, they aren't excepting everyone which is exactly what they are trying to make us do.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg105645#msg105645 date=1111870702]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=11007.msg105602#msg105602 date=1111800269]
Well, it's not really that strange. They'll accept everyone who in turn accepts everyone? They may have gay employees, suddenly you're not accepting all their employees. Why should they accept you if you're not accepting all of them?
[/quote]
But by saying they won't RE-except us unless we accept gay people, they aren't excepting everyone which is exactly what they are trying to make us do.
[/quote]

It sounds like they're accepting everyone who shares their ideals - equal rights? And like I tried to say in my previous post: Maybe they're just accepting everyone who accepts them?

But they accepted us before, then said they couldn't support us any longer.  If they want to TRULY be non-discriminate, shouldn't they except *everyone*?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg105726#msg105726 date=1111905559]
But they accepted us before, then said they couldn't support us any longer.  If they want to TRULY be non-discriminate, shouldn't they except *everyone*?
[/quote]

Maybe their VP is gay and got rejected trying to join the boy scouts, and you just pissed him off? You can't know what triggered their rejection...

It sounds like a very likely scenario for me though - I've heard about companies withdrawing sponsorship for organizations because the organization rejected a few of their employees.

The fact is, for more than a hundred years the Boy Scouts of America have raised fine and outstanding young men, some of the more notables in the list that I showed earlier in this thread. All but one of the men who set foot on the face of the moon were Eagle Scouts. The BSA has been doing *something* right for more than a century, and I applaud not only what they have done for the community but what they have done for me. I stand by the BSA here.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg105726#msg105726 date=1111905559]
But they accepted us before, then said they couldn't support us any longer.  If they want to TRULY be non-discriminate, shouldn't they except *everyone*?
[/quote]

They are not being hypocritical.  They are withdrawing their finacial support of you because you are violating the principles they require you to have.

So they accept us & THEN look @ what we stand for?

Well it was not untill recentlly the whole ordeal got publicity. 

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11007.msg105603#msg105603 date=1111800967]
Arta, stocks and your child are different.
[/quote]

Stocks?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg105555#msg105555 date=1111779860]
It isn't the same thing.  Phobias are fears of something, I don't fear gay people, I don't agree with how they live their life.
[/quote]

That's not correct:

[quote]
ho·mo·pho·bi·a 
n.

  1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
  2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition


Function: noun
Irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

homophobia

n : prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
[/quote]

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11007.msg105752#msg105752 date=1111932241]
The fact is, for more than a hundred years the Boy Scouts of America have raised fine and outstanding young men, some of the more notables in the list that I showed earlier in this thread. All but one of the men who set foot on the face of the moon were Eagle Scouts. The BSA has been doing *something* right for more than a century, and I applaud not only what they have done for the community but what they have done for me. I stand by the BSA here.
[/quote]

I don't dispute that that may well be the case. What's that got to do with gay people? Why must the 'something' be blatent prejudice? Is prejudice something we should instill in our youth? Is that a virtuous thing to do? Don't you find it unsettling that similar arguments to yours were used against black people in the last century?

So, what crazed is saying is that the BSA discriminating against gays is peachy and everyone should be fine with it, but LS&CO not supporting national groups that promote such discrimination is an outrage?

Am I missing something here... such as what LS&CO is doing wrong?

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=11007.msg105930#msg105930 date=1112014008]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11007.msg105752#msg105752 date=1111932241]
The fact is, for more than a hundred years the Boy Scouts of America have raised fine and outstanding young men, some of the more notables in the list that I showed earlier in this thread. All but one of the men who set foot on the face of the moon were Eagle Scouts. The BSA has been doing *something* right for more than a century, and I applaud not only what they have done for the community but what they have done for me. I stand by the BSA here.
[/quote]

I don't dispute that that may well be the case. What's that got to do with gay people? Why must the 'something' be blatent prejudice? Is prejudice something we should instill in our youth? Is that a virtuous thing to do? Don't you find it unsettling that similar arguments to yours were used against black people in the last century?
[/quote]

Should homosexuality be instilled in our youth?

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11007.msg106046#msg106046 date=1112063578]
Should homosexuality be instilled in our youth?
[/quote]

No. Should it be tolerated? Yes.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11007.msg106046#msg106046 date=1112063578]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=11007.msg105930#msg105930 date=1112014008]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11007.msg105752#msg105752 date=1111932241]
The fact is, for more than a hundred years the Boy Scouts of America have raised fine and outstanding young men, some of the more notables in the list that I showed earlier in this thread. All but one of the men who set foot on the face of the moon were Eagle Scouts. The BSA has been doing *something* right for more than a century, and I applaud not only what they have done for the community but what they have done for me. I stand by the BSA here.
[/quote]

I don't dispute that that may well be the case. What's that got to do with gay people? Why must the 'something' be blatent prejudice? Is prejudice something we should instill in our youth? Is that a virtuous thing to do? Don't you find it unsettling that similar arguments to yours were used against black people in the last century?
[/quote]

Should homosexuality be instilled in our youth?
[/quote]

In the same way heterosexuality is I guess.  I don't necisarilly think we should sit our children down and force them to watch gay porn, but I don't think tolerance is such a horrible thing....

So you're sayin we should view/support/tolerate homo vs hetero all the same?  So when talking about sex w/your kids you'll have to give 2 talks always?

Not really.  My sex talk was a box of condoms and a run down of the diffrent stds and how bad they sucked.  Not really much in the way of 'This is how you do it'

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11007.msg106046#msg106046 date=1112063578]
Should homosexuality be instilled in our youth?
[/quote]

What on earth makes you think that a gay person supervising children will 'instill homosexuality' into them? That's among the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

Maybe the child will be more accepting of their way of life, not just the gay people themselves.  Then maybe the child will want to experiment

[quote author=Adron link=topic=11007.msg106051#msg106051 date=1112065818]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11007.msg106046#msg106046 date=1112063578]
Should homosexuality be instilled in our youth?
[/quote]

No. Should it be tolerated? Yes.
[/quote]

If you don't want to have the possibility of an irreparable problem, shouldn't you remove the threat? Obviously nobody wants to have these young men molested by openly homosexual people, which is a possibility that you must accept however rare it might be, why should the BSA risk it? The fact is that most people wouldn't send their boys off to summer camp with a man that belongs on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, and the BSA is simply making it policy.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106103#msg106103 date=1112111317]
Maybe the child will be more accepting of their way of life, not just the gay people themselves.  Then maybe the child will want to experiment
[/quote]

1. You don't understand what homosexuality is.
2. Who cares if they do experiment, as long as they do it safely, because...
3. ... someone who isn't gay wouldn't want to experiment in the manner you suggest.
4. What the hell is wrong with people being accepting of other people's lifestyles?

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11007.msg106118#msg106118 date=1112116883]
If you don't want to have the possibility of an irreparable problem, shouldn't you remove the threat? Obviously nobody wants to have these young men molested by openly homosexual people, which is a possibility that you must accept however rare it might be, why should the BSA risk it?
[/quote]

Threat? Why is the 'threat' of molestation any higher with a gay supervisor? Is it better to be molested by a straight person than a gay person!?

[quote]
The fact is that most people wouldn't send their boys off to summer camp with a man that belongs on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, and the BSA is simply making it policy.
[/quote]

Codifying prejudice is just plain wrong.

It's a constant source of amazement to me that a country that prides itself on freedom, liberty, justice and equality can express the opinions presented here by Hazard without considering itself to be utterly hypocritical.

The US seems, from an external point of view, to be overflowing with rampant, paranoid ignorance on this issue. Crazed obviously doesn't know what he's talking about, and Hazard is presenting arguments that he would probably consider outrageous if they were about anything other than homosexuality.

I don't understand why you consider prejudice against homosexuals to be acceptable, while -- presumably -- considering prejudice against blacks, jews or women to be completely unacceptable. Would you be supportive of the BSA banning black people on the basis that they might 'instill' into the children the virtues of drugs and gang culture? How about banning women in case the children became feminists, or became tempted to become house-husbands?

To be quite frank, the arguments you have presented here are nonsensical, illogical claptrap of the worst order. I'm starting to wonder if you're just trying to wind me up.

It amazes you because you don't understand. Equality and justice is guranteed sure, but it does not mean that it is absolute. In my country, gays have the right to the same due process, the same opportunity, the same freedoms, the same liberties that I have thats true, but they are not guranteed to be liked, loved, or even accepted by anyone. Just because they have freedoms doesn't mean I have to like them and it doesn't mean that I cant protect my children from having contact with them. It doesn't mean that I can't speak poorly of them in opinions, it doesn't mean that I can't protest against gay marriage. It certainly doesn't mean that a PRIVATE ORGANIZATION like the BSA can't make a membership requirement against homosexuals. Its a private institution. Homosexuality does not jive with the moral philosophy with the BSA, so why shouldn't it be disallowed?

This is exactly the kind of thing I hear from your foreigners all of the time. You think the freedom that the United States is an absolute freedom to do whatever you want and be applauded for it. You overexpress something that you don't even understand. You people just don't get it. Arta it seems you obviously you know how this country works, but its clear that you don't. You don't live here, you don't deal with these issues everyday. You think that because somebody has the right to say whatever they please in the US that other people have to like it, respect it, and agree with it. Its not true.  You need to understand its a different system than the type that you are used to and you have no clue how it works.

Boy Scouts of Canada have girls in troups, as long with female leaders. Although Girl Guides of Canada only have girls.

Edit:
This reminds me of that episode of south park when they kicked Big Gay Al out of scouting because they found out he was gay (They couldn't tell my the name :P).

I suggest you all watch it, it discusses everything you guys are talking about. (except Levi)

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11007.msg106126#msg106126 date=1112121756]
It certainly doesn't mean that a PRIVATE ORGANIZATION like the BSA can't make a membership requirement against homosexuals. Its a private institution. Homosexuality does not jive with the moral philosophy with the BSA, so why shouldn't it be disallowed?
[/quote]

So if they had a moral objection to black people it would be ok to make being white a requirement for membership?

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11007.msg106126#msg106126 date=1112121756]
This is exactly the kind of thing I hear from your foreigners all of the time. You think the freedom that the United States is an absolute freedom to do whatever you want and be applauded for it.
[/quote]

No, I don't. I do, however, think that the freedom not to be discriminated against is a tenet of your culture, as it is of mine, and I think your history bares that out. Your country has overcome historic discriminations against women and black people, precisely because those discriminations deny freedoms to sections of your population. Discrimination against gay people is the same thing.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11007.msg106126#msg106126 date=1112121756]
You overexpress something that you don't even understand. You people just don't get it. Arta it seems you obviously you know how this country works, but its clear that you don't. You don't live here, you don't deal with these issues everyday. You think that because somebody has the right to say whatever they please in the US that other people have to like it, respect it, and agree with it. Its not true.  You need to understand its a different system than the type that you are used to and you have no clue how it works.
[/quote]

I understand that it's different -- only too well -- and that's not the point. I'm not talking about free speech, and of course there's no guarantee that people have to like what you say. Although I wouldn't claim to have unbounded, intimate knowledge of US culture, I think I have enough of an understanding to be able to say what I say with authority. If I feel I don't know something well enough to comment, I say so. Remember those discussions about the media?

Don't embark on a 'you just don't understand America' rant just because you have nothing sensible to say. Discrimination and prejudice are what they are, and in this context, they are unjustifiable. The culture surrounding the discrimination never justifies it.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11007.msg106126#msg106126 date=1112121756]
This is exactly the kind of thing I hear from your foreigners all of the time.
[/quote]

I guess it is. We probably thought higher of you than you really deserve. America is a country of prejudice and discrimination. Thanks for clearing that up.


Going back to the point of boy scouts, I don't think the chances of a child being molested by an openly homosexual person is greater than by one that seems heterosexual. A child molester might well have own children, or even be molesting his/her own children.

This association with gay people and child molestors is completely absured.

At that, even if the man was gay, doesn't the BSA organization do background checks to make sure the leaders they choose aren't capable of doing such things?

How do I not understand what homosexuality is?  Explain it to me then, I want GOOD explainations.

Some things have to be sacrificed for the greater good.  The movie...A Few Good Men? (Tom Cruise & Jack Nicholson?)---"I want the truth, you can't handle the truth" & so on...that movie makes a VERY good point.  Sure, going to the extent of having someone killed is stepping over the line, but excluding someone from a PRIVATE group isn't.  If EVERYONE should not be discriminated against & should be allowed into whatever group based only upon the fact that they are humans, I then & now demand admittance to Clan vL.  You can't turn me away by basis of me not being a decent programmer as I have no extreme insterest in learning to program.  You can't turn me away because I disagree with how gay people live, that would be discriminating against me too.  So, I demand admittance.


I'm not sure what all goes into accepting a BSA leader, but there has to be some sort of something.  There was a convicted drug leader that had a son in our troop, he was never allowed to be any sort of leader.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106153#msg106153 date=1112134459]
How do I not understand what homosexuality is?  Explain it to me then, I want GOOD explainations.
[/quote]

Gay people are attracted to people of the same sex because that's who they are. It's biological. They don't choose to become gay any more than you choose to be heterosexual. A child will not become gay by being around gay people, any more than a gay child will become straight by hanging around straight people. I don't deny that someone could 'become gay' -- in a manner of speaking -- through brainwashing or something like that. Indeed, some gay people seem to 'become straight' by that means. I would challenge anyone who claims that that sort of thing happens on a regular basis, however. Indeed, I would consider it likely that such behaviour is so rare as to be irrelevant. Additionally, I suppose it's possible that a child could become more effeminate by being around effeminate people -- gay or otherwise -- but that's not the same thing as 'becomeing gay'. In fact, I find the whole 'becoming gay' argument pretty silly.

As for the rest of your post, read my responses to Hazard. Should private groups be allowed to discriminate against black people, women, jews, the disabled...?

Your programming analagy doesn't stand up to reason. You can become a good enough programmer to join vL by learning. You could be trained. Your problem isn't because of who you are, it's because of what you know (or in this case, don't know). Thus, your problem is one you can solve, by becoming qualified.

I agree that we can't turn you away for being homophobic.

That is your belief that I am not qualified to join your group.  I do not plan to change myself &^ have decided not to advance in programming, I still should be able to join on the basis that gay people should be able to join scouts because they are not going to change who they are.

[quote]As for the rest of your post, read my responses to Hazard. Should private groups be allowed to discriminate against black people, women, jews, the disabled...?[/quote]

If it better serves the group, then yes. The best example in defense of BSA is the Supreme Court case involving Hooters. A guy sued them because he wanted to waitress there and they turned him down due to his gender. The case was taken to the Supreme Court and Hooters won due to the fact that it's customer base wants women surving them - not men. It was, thus, in the best interest of hte company to have only female waitresses.

The same idea, I think, applies to BSA. If I was going to put my child in a group that I thought was going to preach to him good moral values, I sure as hell wouldn't want a gay troop leader teaching these things - that's not a good example - especially when raising your child to be a Christian. It's just not, you can't deny it without lying.

A closer to home example is these forums. If somebody comes here who, to put it nicely, lacks a bit of intelligence/common sense/maturity/etc. what happens? They get flamed continuously until they either are scared away or are banned. For the most part, admins don't protect them. But then, if somebody can hold a semi-intellectual conversation, or they know a bit about technology, etc. most people welcome them with open arms and are nice to them. But everyone is OK with this, because these forums were generally ment for intelligent conversations, and allowing the opposite on a large scale would basically diminish the purpose/credibility of these forums. Sure, this is a much less extreme example but the idea applies.

Another one, why can't somebody like - me, or Mitosis join Valhalla Legends? You guys are, essentially, a private organization. And guess what? Your leaders/members are expected to act a certain way, and posess advanced knowledge in certain subjects (for the most part.) How is that not discrimination against those that aren't as advanced?


Arta, stop disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.

From what I've read at WebMD, only about half of a male's sexual orientaion is decided by genes, the other half by environment.  SO, logically, if a child is raised in a 'straight' environment the child will be much more likely to be 'straight' than if a child was raised in a 'gay' environment.

I do acknowledge not only gay people in scouts would molest/take advantage of children.  But this is just sad

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/29/scouts.charges/index.html

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106153#msg106153 date=1112134459]
Some things have to be sacrificed for the greater good.  The movie...A Few Good Men? (Tom Cruise & Jack Nicholson?)---"I want the truth, you can't handle the truth" & so on...that movie makes a VERY good point.  Sure, going to the extent of having someone killed is stepping over the line, but excluding someone from a PRIVATE group isn't.  If EVERYONE should not be discriminated against & should be allowed into whatever group based only upon the fact that they are humans, I then & now demand admittance to Clan vL.  You can't turn me away by basis of me not being a decent programmer as I have no extreme insterest in learning to program.  You can't turn me away because I disagree with how gay people live, that would be discriminating against me too.  So, I demand admittance.
[/quote]

So then don't bitch when LS & Co deny funding.

But that is acting against the greater good.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106161#msg106161 date=1112135874]
because they are not going to change who they are.
[/quote]

It's not a choice. It cannot be changed at will.


[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=11007.msg106162#msg106162 date=1112135934]
If it better serves the group, then yes. The best example in defense of BSA is the Supreme Court case involving Hooters. A guy sued them because he wanted to waitress there and they turned him down due to his gender. The case was taken to the Supreme Court and Hooters won due to the fact that it's customer base wants women surving them - not men. It was, thus, in the best interest of hte company to have only female waitresses.

The same idea, I think, applies to BSA. If I was going to put my child in a group that I thought was going to preach to him good moral values, I sure as hell wouldn't want a gay troop leader teaching these things - that's not a good example - especially when raising your child to be a Christian. It's just not, you can't deny it without lying.
[/quote]

Only if you consider being gay and having bad morals the same thing. I take issue with that. The fact that your religion supports your homophobia just makes the situation all the more sad. If the Supreme Court wants to codify misogyny, that's their business. It's funny that you seem to think hooters has ok moral values, seeing as it exists purely so that men can stare at women's breasts, while at the same time gay people must universally be immoral because of a sexual preference, which needn't even be a part of their job.


[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=11007.msg106162#msg106162 date=1112135934]
Another one, why can't somebody like - me, or Mitosis join Valhalla Legends? You guys are, essentially, a private organization. And guess what? Your leaders/members are expected to act a certain way, and posess advanced knowledge in certain subjects (for the most part.) How is that not discrimination against those that aren't as advanced?
[/quote]

Like I said to Crazed, you can become qualified. You can work hard. You can hang around. You can make friends. Then you can join. You can't stop being gay, and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=11007.msg106162#msg106162 date=1112135934]
Arta, stop disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.
[/quote]

God... never have I been so close to using profanity on these forums as I am now. I am not doing that. I feel strongly about this issue, and I have exhibited considerable patience in putting up with the sea of nonsensical prattle that has been flowing from the keyboards of the rest of you. So, hismajesty, get serious or get lost. If the intent of your post was to offend me then you have succeeded.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106196#msg106196 date=1112146530]
But that is acting against the greater good.
[/quote]

That's relative. They believe in non-discrimination while the BSA doesn't. So from their perspective it is for the greater good. What is so hard to understand about that?

[quote]Only if you consider being gay and having bad morals the same thing. I take issue with that. The fact that your religion supports your homophobia just makes the situation all the more sad. If the Supreme Court wants to codify misogyny, that's their business. It's funny that you seem to think hooters has ok moral values, seeing as it exists purely so that men can stare at women's breasts, while at the same time gay people must universally be immoral because of a sexual preference, which needn't even be a part of their job.[/quote]

Why is it alright to discriminate against people based on gender but not sexual preference Arta? Why can the Supreme Court condone one but not the other? I never said I condone Hooters activities, nor do I intend to imply that I do. I was using that as an example since a legal decision has been made concerning them. And, besides, I'd wager that a lot of people go there for the food. During Model UN a bunch of us went there for lunch, and the people that made the reservations were girls from our schools. Our waitress was pretty ugly and was more attentive to the other tables than ours, maybe because we were kids or something, but I didn't really care as the food was good. =)

[quote]Like I said to Crazed, you can become qualified. You can work hard. You can hang around. You can make friends. Then you can join. You can't stop being gay, and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.[/quote]

Why do I have to work hard? Why do I have to become qualified? I've been hanging around for a long time, I've made a decent number of friends as well. Why aren't recruiters knocking at my door if this is an equal oppurtunity clan run by so many open minded people? I mean, why discriminate against me because I'm not working hard, not qualified, and perhaps haven't been around a long time or made any friends? What if I can't help it? What if I was a mentally challenged antisocial bnet player? Is that my fault?

By the way, in the city next to where I live - Virginia Beach, VA - it's like "the trend" for gay people to go to this place that supposedly makes them ungay via hypnosis or something. I've mentioned that before after reading about it in the paper I beleive.

[quote]God... never have I been so close to using profanity on these forums as I am now. I am not doing that. I feel strongly about this issue, and I have exhibited considerable patience in putting up with the sea of nonsensical prattle that has been flowing from the keyboards of the rest of you. So, hismajesty, get serious or get lost. If the intent of your post was to offend me then you have succeeded.[/quote]

Ouch, nice to see such a peaceful liberal getting so worked up over a little comment by a teenager half way across the globe. The intention of that comment wasn't to offend you, but I can't say I'm too upset that it did. The point of it was to shine light on the fact that, to my knowledge, you have not once agreed with anything me, CrAz3D, Hazard, or Peof have said. It truly appears as if you're disagreeing just so you can argue with us and make us look like asses, etc. Since, of course, you're always innocent and always right.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=11007.msg106158#msg106158 date=1112135205]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106153#msg106153 date=1112134459]
How do I not understand what homosexuality is? Explain it to me then, I want GOOD explainations.
[/quote]

Gay people are attracted to people of the same sex because that's who they are. It's biological. They don't choose to become gay any more than you choose to be heterosexual. A child will not become gay by being around gay people, any more than a gay child will become straight by hanging around straight people.
[/quote]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. I'm 17, and I've been doing competitive swimming for 8 years (since I was 9). I've gradually watched all but six males on my team turn gay. First, one of them became gay, and within six months five "came out". I've also seen this at school, where people are turned gay by their friends.

Here's an example I've seen countless times. Someone joins theater club in high school or junior high. It's fun and they enjoy it. Imagine the combination of factors this kid may (and often does) experience:

a) It's junior high or high school, and he may feel awkward
b) People around him are gay
c) Here comes my generalization: gay people talk about being gay and spread their message all the time
d) Culture (eg MTV) says "people in theater club are gay"

He thinks to himself, "Well...maybe I'm gay!" and gradually convinces himself that he is.

Don't interpret this post to be a homophobic statement, but if you've ever seen a large gay community (such as the one in my school), you'll know this is true. I think Crazed is right; some people are genuinely gay, but the number of gays is disproportionate enough and socially distributed in such a way to realize that gay people do indeed choose, whether from outside pressure as mentioned above, or through some sort of family trouble. They use being gay as a reason for feeling the way they do. After all, we were designed to reproduce, and gays don't exactly do that.

Honestly, my only beef is that flamboyant gay people are really annoying, but I'm a firm believer in only legislative action that prevents others from being hurt. Thus, I don't think they should really be excluded from anything, but this boy scout leaders thing is a tough issue, and I have absolutely no stance on it whatsoever.

Rip me to shreds, Arta, Adron, and dxoigmn.

vL requires people to be qualified. That's not the same as discriminating on the basis of a person's sexuality. The argument you propose would require hostitals to hire unqualified doctors because they can't discriminate about anything. That's just silly. The difference is clear.

As for hooters, the answer is obvious: being female is a required quality in order to do the job. The same doesn't apply with homosexuality, because there's no reason to believe that homosexuality will affect someone's job performance. No reason other than ignorant, paranoid homophobia, anyway.

I have agreed with Hazard before. I remember agreeing with Quasi too, but I don't remember what it was about. There are areas of common ground, just not many. I don't know where you get the idea that I'm always peaceful. When provoked, I get pissed off just like everyone else does. Finally, I don't need to make you look like asses. As far as this thread is concerned, you're all doing a very good job of that without my help.

Arta, being male wouldn't make someone any less adequate of a steward wouldn't it, just as homosexuals aren't any less qualified to teach good clean living to youngsters? They have concluded that homosexuals do not live by the values that they intend to teach and therefore are unqualified to teach them. If you think you know better, prove the BSA wrong.

Back to the original topic:

The BSA has the right (until it is proven in court that they don't) to deny openly gay members / scout masters.

Levi Strauss has the right to choose where they invest there money.  If they don't agree with the BSA's policy, there is absolutely no reason they shouldn't withdraw funding. 

And you also have the right to not buy Levi Strauss products if you don't support the company's actions.  Unfortunantly, it's pretty unlikely that the number of people that might stop buying their products will have any effect on the company. (Hell, I've never bought Levi Strauss before -- cause I don't like their clothes.)

It's just about as simple as that.

As a former boy scout myself, I don't see anything wrong with having an openly gay scout master.  I do see something wrong with having a paedophile scout master.  These are two completely different cases.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=11007.msg106140#msg106140 date=1112127937]

I guess it is. We probably thought higher of you than you really deserve. America is a country of prejudice and discrimination. Thanks for clearing that up.[/quote]

And you point the finger at me for personal flames? America is a great nation, as is blatantly obvious by both history and current events. America is a country of liberties, and a private club has the right to set membership requirements? You want to act all high and mighty you can go ahead, but don't try and tell me that you know what America is because the fact is you aren't basing any of your opinions on facts. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it state that private organizations and clubs cannot set requirements for employment or membership. You base your entire opinion of American society off of the people that you see around here, and that isn't adequate. If I were to base my opinion on all Swedes based on the people I have seen around here (you) then I'd have to say that Swedes are arrogant jackasses that are convinced of self-superiority and righteousness and that Sweden as a nation views itself as the bringer of truth and knowledge to the entire world. You see how asinine that sounds? Its exactly what you're doing.

[quote author=Banana fanna fo fanna link=topic=11007.msg106215#msg106215 date=1112149709]
Don't interpret this post to be a homophobic statement, but if you've ever seen a large gay community (such as the one in my school), you'll know this is true. I think Crazed is right; some people are genuinely gay, but the number of gays is disproportionate enough and socially distributed in such a way to realize that gay people do indeed choose, whether from outside pressure as mentioned above, or through some sort of family trouble. They use being gay as a reason for feeling the way they do. After all, we were designed to reproduce, and gays don't exactly do that.
[/quote]

Actually, I do know where you're coming from. I'm 22, and I saw similar things at school. My response, however, is simple: who cares? That's the age at which people are supposed to experiment. Of the people I knew at school who were gay or bi, only one of them still is (to the best of my knowledge). I guess my point is, when people make a 'fasionable' choice to become gay, it never lasts. A lot of those people will suddenly find they are not at all gay when it comes to anything sexual, and the rest will grow out of taking such extremes to be fasionable. The people who actually are gay will stay that way.

As far as the boy scouts goes, I still don't think it matters. I do think that it would be inappropriate for a gay scout leader to attempt to convince his cohorts that being gay is cool, or something similar. It would obviously be wrong for a scout leader of any sexual orientation to be openly sexual with their charges. I simply take issue with the assumption that a gay person would do these things, and would thus be a bad scout leader. I see absolutely no reason why gay people automatically lack moral fibre.

In fact, I had several gay teachers at school, and didn't even realise it at the time. I once asked one of them if he was married, and got a rather incredulous 'no' accompanied with a bewildered expression :)

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11007.msg106222#msg106222 date=1112150414]
Arta, being male wouldn't make someone any less adequate of a steward wouldn't it, just as homosexuals aren't any less qualified to teach good clean living to youngsters? They have concluded that homosexuals do not live by the values that they intend to teach and therefore are unqualified to teach them. If you think you know better, prove the BSA wrong.
[/quote]

They're less adequate if the company needs stewards with big breasts to lure in their horny clientelle...

Arta:
You sexual preference IS a choice!  It is proven that about 50% of your sexuality is genetic & the other 50% is decided by your surroundings, make sure all the surroundings are striaght then there won't be any gay people.

Morals are what is right & wrong, the bible is the basis of morality, the bible says man & woman should be together, homosexuality is immoral.

Phobia is a fear, did you not read my previous post relating to this?  I am not afraid of them, I don't want to be around them.

Hooters is merely being used as an example, maybe if you weren't so narrowed minded you would see that.

Gay people can become straight & then join scouts, or make their own scouting type organization.  Being gay is a choice, it is influenced by your environment, same as being a bad person (robber, murderer, drub dealer) is.  You can change.

dxoigmn:
So by accepting immoral people & shunning people that are being raised with respect, dignity, & morals you are making the world a better place?...hmm, ok

Banana:
Thank you for a third party type comment that shows the reality of one's environment affecting your sexual preference.  LOL @ the flamboyant people comment.
Also, I figure Scouting is a PRIVATE organization, you do NOT have to join if you don't want to.  If you don't agree with us, go [s]screw yourself[/s] start your own organization


Arta, again:
Of COURSE being a homosexual will affect one's job as a scout leader.  Leaders are supposed to live by the scout law & be moral.  Being gay isn't being moral.

I DEMAND to know how I am homophobic


K:
But why should they support us FULLY knowing our stance against homosexuality & then withdraw funding based on the fact that we choose not to allow those peopel to join?  And also, because Levi wants BSA to accept everyone regardless of their beliefs & sexual prefferences, shouldn't they do the same?

Arta, again:
Why should someone experiment with something that is wrong?  Should people experiment with crack, coke, pot, heroin, acid, lsd, ectasy?

Gay people are less adequate if the troop needs people to teach & support good morals


-----------
EDIT:
It is hard to reply when people keep replying before I get a chance, lol

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106227#msg106227 date=1112150940]
Arta:
You sexual preference IS a choice!  It is proven that about 50% of your sexuality is genetic & the other 50% is decided by your surroundings, make sure all the surroundings are striaght then there won't be any gay people.
[/quote]

While I do not discount environmental factors as a possible influence, I do not think that people 'become gay' if the 50% genetics isn't there to begin with. As a friend of mine once put it: "Not all people with the gene are gay, but all people who are gay have the gene".

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106227#msg106227 date=1112150940]
Morals are what is right & wrong, the bible is the basis of morality, the bible says man & woman should be together, homosexuality is immoral.
[/quote]

With the bible as your moral compass, I assume you also think that slavery, death by stoning, human sacrifice, and touching the skin of dead pigs are all reprehensible as well.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106227#msg106227 date=1112150940]
Phobia is a fear, did you not read my previous post relating to this?  I am not afraid of them, I don't want to be around them.
[/quote]

I answered that already:

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=11007.msg105929#msg105929 date=1112013672]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg105555#msg105555 date=1111779860]
It isn't the same thing.  Phobias are fears of something, I don't fear gay people, I don't agree with how they live their life.
[/quote]

That's not correct:

[quote]
ho·mo·pho·bi·a 
n.

  1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
  2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition


Function: noun
Irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

homophobia

n : prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
[/quote]
[/quote]

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106227#msg106227 date=1112150940]
Hooters is merely being used as an example, maybe if you weren't so narrowed minded you would see that.
[/quote]

It's a bad example, all I did was highlight that.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106227#msg106227 date=1112150940]
Gay people can become straight & then join scouts, or make their own scouting type organization.  Being gay is a choice, it is influenced by your environment, same as being a bad person (robber, murderer, drub dealer) is.  You can change.
[/quote]

*shrug* I disagree.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106227#msg106227 date=1112150940]
Arta, again:
Of COURSE being a homosexual will affect one's job as a scout leader.  Leaders are supposed to live by the scout law & be moral.  Being gay isn't being moral.
[/quote]

I don't agree that it's immoral. I don't see why a gay person would give worse guidance than a straight person on any given topic.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106227#msg106227 date=1112150940]
I DEMAND to know how I am homophobic
[/quote]

See above.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106227#msg106227 date=1112150940]
Arta, again:
Why should someone experiment with something that is wrong?  Should people experiment with crack, coke, pot, heroin, acid, lsd, ectasy?

Gay people are less adequate if the troop needs people to teach & support good morals
[/quote]

...homosexuality isn't wrong.


[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106227#msg106227 date=1112150940]
-----------
EDIT:
It is hard to reply when people keep replying before I get a chance, lol
[/quote]

Hey! We agree on something! :)

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=11007.msg106217#msg106217 date=1112150077]
vL requires people to be qualified. That's not the same as discriminating on the basis of a person's sexuality. The argument you propose would require hostitals to hire unqualified doctors because they can't discriminate about anything. That's just silly. The difference is clear.[/quote]

Point taken. I wouldn't want an unqualified doctor working on my child, nor would I want a gay scout leader working with him. My argument was petty, but it was a good analogy in my opinion. It's still discrimination though.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=11007.msg106217#msg106217 date=1112150077]
As for hooters, the answer is obvious: being female is a required quality in order to do the job. The same doesn't apply with homosexuality, because there's no reason to believe that homosexuality will affect someone's job performance. No reason other than ignorant, paranoid homophobia, anyway.[/quote]

There are male waiters at Red Lobster, why would a male waiter at Hooters do an inferior job?

I do support slavery, not in a race based way.  I think there should be free prison labor.  Death by stoning, sure, if death is deserved why not.  Human sacrifice not in a 'jump into a volcano' way, but in the sense that someone can sacrifice their life for their country/beliefs/family

I guess technically the joinning vL theory wouldn't work because the defintion os discrimination is against a class/category, not an individual.  But Levi is discriminating against Boy Scouts because of our beliefs.

I still see Hooters as a totally valid example

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106238#msg106238 date=1112152166]
I do support slavery, not in a race based way.  I think there should be free prison labor.  Death by stoning, sure, if death is deserved why not.  Human sacrifice not in a 'jump into a volcano' way, but in the sense that someone can sacrifice their life for their country/beliefs/family

I guess technically the joinning vL theory wouldn't work because the defintion os discrimination is against a class/category, not an individual.  But Levi is discriminating against Boy Scouts because of our beliefs.

I still see Hooters as a totally valid example
[/quote]

Prison labor is pointless, the death penalty is abhorrent, and I refer to someone else doing the sacrificing. I guess the bible is just wrong about dead pigs. Speaking of the bible being the source of all morality: isn't God the source of all morality? Just a thought. Especially given that different branches of the church preach quite different moral values.

I think our positions are sufficiently divergent that no common ground is possible.

Ok, God is the basis for morality, but the bible has a little bit to do with God ;)

Which moral values are quite different?  Which ones conflict?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106245#msg106245 date=1112153368]
Ok, God is the basis for morality, but the bible has a little bit to do with God ;)
[/quote]

I'll concede that ;)

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106245#msg106245 date=1112153368]
Which moral values are quite different?  Which ones conflict?
[/quote]

I think that's a topic for another thread. Feel free to start one :)

God and the Bible are mankinds main basis of morality, and right and wrong. I agree.

[quote]"You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination."[/quote]

[quote]"[A] man shall leave his father and mother, and be made one with his wife; and the two shall become one flesh."[/quote]

[quote]"Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolator, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers of drunkards of slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God."[/quote]

In that case, I assume you think all of the bible is correct, and not just the parts you agree with. See my previous post.

What was that part about touching dead pig skin?  Biblical football? ;)

Something about it being unclean to touch the skin of a dead pig. I'll find the reference tomorrow if you like, but I'm going to bed now.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11007.msg106224#msg106224 date=1112150714]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=11007.msg106140#msg106140 date=1112127937]
I guess it is. We probably thought higher of you than you really deserve. America is a country of prejudice and discrimination. Thanks for clearing that up.[/quote]

And you point the finger at me for personal flames? America is a great nation, as is blatantly obvious by both history and current events. America is a country of liberties, and a private club has the right to set membership requirements?
...
Nowhere in the US Constitution does it state that private organizations and clubs cannot set requirements for employment or membership.
[/quote]

America ... no, I wouldn't say it's a great nation. Yes, of course private organizations and clubs can set requirements. I'm not talking about what great laws you have, but what you are like. I'm suggesting than in other countries than America, there'd be less likelihood of a large organization discriminating against homosexuals. Whether it's illegalized or not.


[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11007.msg106224#msg106224 date=1112150714]
You base your entire opinion of American society off of the people that you see around here, and that isn't adequate.
[/quote]

Are you saying that you aren't a typical American? That you're shaming America?



[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11007.msg106224#msg106224 date=1112150714]
If I were to base my opinion on all Swedes based on the people I have seen around here (you) then I'd have to say that Swedes are arrogant jackasses that are convinced of self-superiority and righteousness and that Sweden as a nation views itself as the bringer of truth and knowledge to the entire world. You see how asinine that sounds? Its exactly what you're doing.
[/quote]

Strange. I thought that was the description of Hazard.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=11007.msg106208#msg106208 date=1112148781]
Why is it alright to discriminate against people based on gender but not sexual preference Arta?
[/quote]

It's alright to select females or males where the difference is relevant. It's not alright where the difference is irrelevant. For example, if you were shooting a porn movie, you might want to select actors based on what kind of sexual actions they're willing to engage in. BSA isn't about hot steamy sex though, so the sexual preferences are irrelevant for all other reasons than homophobia.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=11007.msg106208#msg106208 date=1112148781]
Why do I have to work hard? Why do I have to become qualified? I've been hanging around for a long time, I've made a decent number of friends as well. Why aren't recruiters knocking at my door if this is an equal oppurtunity clan run by so many open minded people? I mean, why discriminate against me because I'm not working hard, not qualified, and perhaps haven't been around a long time or made any friends? What if I can't help it? What if I was a mentally challenged antisocial bnet player? Is that my fault?
[/quote]

You don't have to work hard. You do have to become qualified. Anything could qualify you, many things not even requiring hard work. Hard work might help, but it's not necessary. The selection is actually based on how well you'd fit in or if you'd extend vL in some interesting fashion. Recruiters aren't knocking at your door because that's not how we work. You can rest assured that you're not being discriminated against based on your sexual preferences though. Those aren't relevant.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=11007.msg106162#msg106162 date=1112135934]
The same idea, I think, applies to BSA. If I was going to put my child in a group that I thought was going to preach to him good moral values, I sure as hell wouldn't want a gay troop leader teaching these things - that's not a good example - especially when raising your child to be a Christian. It's just not, you can't deny it without lying.
[/quote]

Why wouldn't you want a gay troop leader preaching good moral values? Are you saying that BSA is actually Sex Ed.?

Really, the sexual preferences of whoever preaches good moral values are ... irrelevant!

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=11007.msg106162#msg106162 date=1112135934]
[quote]As for the rest of your post, read my responses to Hazard. Should private groups be allowed to discriminate against black people, women, jews, the disabled...?[/quote]

If it better serves the group, then yes. The best example in defense of BSA is the Supreme Court case involving Hooters. A guy sued them because he wanted to waitress there and they turned him down due to his gender. The case was taken to the Supreme Court and Hooters won due to the fact that it's customer base wants women surving them - not men. It was, thus, in the best interest of hte company to have only female waitresses.

The same idea, I think, applies to BSA. If I was going to put my child in a group that I thought was going to preach to him good moral values, I sure as hell wouldn't want a gay troop leader teaching these things - that's not a good example - especially when raising your child to be a Christian. It's just not, you can't deny it without lying.

A closer to home example is these forums. If somebody comes here who, to put it nicely, lacks a bit of intelligence/common sense/maturity/etc. what happens? They get flamed continuously until they either are scared away or are banned. For the most part, admins don't protect them. But then, if somebody can hold a semi-intellectual conversation, or they know a bit about technology, etc. most people welcome them with open arms and are nice to them. But everyone is OK with this, because these forums were generally ment for intelligent conversations, and allowing the opposite on a large scale would basically diminish the purpose/credibility of these forums. Sure, this is a much less extreme example but the idea applies.

Another one, why can't somebody like - me, or Mitosis join Valhalla Legends? You guys are, essentially, a private organization. And guess what? Your leaders/members are expected to act a certain way, and posess advanced knowledge in certain subjects (for the most part.) How is that not discrimination against those that aren't as advanced?


Arta, stop disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.
[/quote]
I myself and a couple hundred other people could give you a few good reasons why Mitosis wouldn't be allowed...

These are my thoughts on this whole thing:

1: I personally, do not like gay people, HOWEVER, I have no problem with them as long as they do not "get gay" anywhere near me, otherwise I can be very nice to them.

2: There is no chance of a homosexual raping a child unless they have more things wrong with their brain then just the fact of being gay. Which would be logged in their medical records.

3: If scouts is a private group, and they don't want homosexuals to be allowed with them, then so be it. The homosexuals can start their own scouting group if they want it that badly. Forcing BSA to allow homosexuals to join would be the only thing "wrong" going on.

Adron:
What, in your opinion, IS a great nation then?

Why are you turning Hazards words around & using them maliciously against him?  Are all Swedish people manipulative?

By definition, as Arta pointed out, homophobia is a VERY GOOD reason & therefore it becomes irrelevant.  We do not agree with their sexual life, therefore it become relevant, maybe if someone could use reasonable logic they would see what has been stated over & over & over again.

I wouldn't want a gay person in scouts because they do not have the same moral standards as I do.  BSA ISN'T sex ed & no one said it was, you are putting MORE words in the mouths of others.

Sexual preferences are moral issues & are relevant.

Scr33n0r
I do believe that I'm on the exact same page as you are.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106227#msg106227 date=1112150940]
dxoigmn:
So by accepting immoral people & shunning people that are being raised with respect, dignity, & morals you are making the world a better place?...hmm, ok
[/quote]

They don't think gay people are immoral! What do you not understand about that? It's an obvious conflict of opinion and both are entitled to that opinion. So let's  think about this for a moment.

Fact: The BSA believes homosexuals are immoral people.
Fact: LS & Co mandates that in order to get funding from them you must not discriminate as this is counter-productive to society.
Fact: LS & Co does not believe that homosexuals are immoral people.
Conclusion: LS & Co denys funding to the BSA because they discriminate, which is counter-productive to society (in LS & Co's opinion which is completely valid because if the BSA believes homosexuals to be immoral certainly LS & Co and believe them to not be immoral).
QED.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106227#msg106227 date=1112150940]
K:
But why should they support us FULLY knowing our stance against homosexuality & then withdraw funding based on the fact that we choose not to allow those peopel to join?  And also, because Levi wants BSA to accept everyone regardless of their beliefs & sexual prefferences, shouldn't they do the same?
[/quote]

Can you prove LS & Co fully knew about the BSA's stance against homosexuality? But even so, the answer to your first question is: because they can do whatever the hell they want with their own money just like the BSA can do whatever the hell is wants in it's own private little organization...ding ding ding! Now to address your second question. LS & Co does not want the "BSA to accept everyone regardless of their beliefs & sexual prefferences." They merely state that because you do not accept these people you don't get money from them. They're not forcing you to change your ways and I'm sure they could care less as long as you don't get any of their money. Anytime you get money from a private donor they have restrictions on how that money can be used and in the case of the federal government can force you to enact laws. This is the case with many federal monies, they force the several states to enact non-discriminatory laws otherwise they lose their funding (there is a great example with highway funding but I can't recall it exactly). What LS & Co is doing is essentially the same thing the federal government does and we do not question the federal government!

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106263#msg106263 date=1112159253]
By definition, as Arta pointed out, homophobia is a VERY GOOD reason & therefore it becomes irrelevant. 
[/quote]

Excuse me? Homophobia is a terrible thing. It's the equivalent of racism or sexism.

[quote author=Scr33n0r link=topic=11007.msg106258#msg106258 date=1112156071]
3: If scouts is a private group, and they don't want homosexuals to be allowed with them, then so be it. The homosexuals can start their own scouting group if they want it that badly. Forcing BSA to allow homosexuals to join would be the only thing "wrong" going on.
[/quote]

This is OK, one shouldn't force them to anything. They shouldn't complain about losing sponsors though, and they must also be aware that some people's opinion of them will be significantly lowered because they don't allow people based on sexual orientation.

I disagree. I think it's the same as rejecting someone because they're black or female -- something which, I hope, they would never get away with.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=11007.msg106311#msg106311 date=1112184789]
I disagree. I think it's the same as rejecting someone because they're black or female -- something which, I hope, they would never get away with.
[/quote]

But rejecting somebody because they're white, or male is OK?

I think you might be putting words in his mouth.

I personally think the boy scouts should be able to do what ever the hell they want, but if they want to act this way they should lose all funding and tax cuts the gov. gives them.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=11007.msg106313#msg106313 date=1112187133]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=11007.msg106311#msg106311 date=1112184789]
I disagree. I think it's the same as rejecting someone because they're black or female -- something which, I hope, they would never get away with.
[/quote]

But rejecting somebody because they're white, or male is OK?
[/quote]

No, of course not. When did I ever say that?

You didn't include either in your post, and you seem to support the Hooters decision.

Some things must be done for the greater good of society, ie raise moral, respectable people. 

LS&co funded BSA, then withdrew funding because we don't accept gay people.  We've never accepted gay people.  We reject/deny gay people because of their beliefs, LS&Co rejected/denied us because of our beliefs.  Is that not the same thing?

Unless LS&Co is full of incompetent people that just hand out money without knowing where it is going, they knew about our stance on gay people as it has never been different to my knowledge.

I'm saying homophobia being viewed as immoral makes it relevant.

I don't think people's opinion has been lowered, I think people join scouting still because they want to have 'physically strong, mentally awake, & morally straight' kids.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106330#msg106330 date=1112198490]
LS&co funded BSA, then withdrew funding because we don't accept gay people.  We've never accepted gay people.  We reject/deny gay people because of their beliefs, LS&Co rejected/denied us because of our beliefs.  Is that not the same thing?
[/quote]

You reject gay people because of their beliefs. LS&Co rejects you because of your actions. There's actually a difference. If you believed that gay people were immoral, but didn't actually reject gays...

And in the above paragraph, you need to read "actions" as "actions involving BSA" - you don't have to invite gays into your home or your private parties to keep funding from LS&Co, but in your role in BSA you have to accept them. This said before you bring up gays' actions. We're talking about actions taken where BSA is involved. Not about what gay people do in their homes or with their mates. I wouldn't be opposed to kicking gays that were having gay sex during BSA country trips.


[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106330#msg106330 date=1112198490]
I don't think people's opinion has been lowered, I think people join scouting still because they want to have 'physically strong, mentally awake, & morally straight' kids.
[/quote]

I joined scouting for the physically strong, mentally awake, enjoy outdoors activities part. People's sexual attractions were never involved. Actually, including everyone on equal grounds was an important part. Anti-racism, anti-discrimination.

And I'm sure some people's opinions of BSA have been lowered - why else would LS&co cut funding? ;)

[s]We reject gay people based on how they act sexually (their physical actions & their moral actions).  LS&Co withdrew funding because of our moral actions & physical actions[/s]...this is hard to explain.

We believe being gay is wrong.  We don't let gay people into the troop.  LS&Co believes discrimination is wrong.  They dropped our funding.
Both sides have a belief & an action.

I believe they cut funding because they got new corporate leadership that didn't want pointless lawsuits, not because they didn't like how the BSA operated

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106358#msg106358 date=1112208587]
[s]We reject gay people based on how they act sexually (their physical actions & their moral actions).  LS&Co withdrew funding because of our moral actions & physical actions[/s]...this is hard to explain.
[/quote]

It's hard to explain, and particularly, you're likely to find that actions particular to gay people aren't related to scouting and BSA...

[quote author=Adron link=topic=11007.msg106378#msg106378 date=1112216703]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106358#msg106358 date=1112208587]
[s]We reject gay people based on how they act sexually (their physical actions & their moral actions).  LS&Co withdrew funding because of our moral actions & physical actions[/s]...this is hard to explain.
[/quote]

It's hard to explain, and particularly, you're likely to find that actions particular to gay people aren't related to scouting and BSA...
[/quote]???  Actions related to gays aren't related to scouting?

Just change 'gay' and 'homophobic' to 'black' and 'racist' in all your arguments, and you'll see where I'm coming from.

Black & gay isn't the same thing though.  People don't choose to be black/white (except Wacko Jacko) usually.  People choose to become gay.

Nope. Not really. Even if they did, it wouldn't matter.

It DOES matter becuase it IS a choice

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106428#msg106428 date=1112231495]
It DOES matter becuase it IS a choice
[/quote]

Didn't we already establish that the 'forces' which cause someone to be gay are mostly genetic and environmental/external factors of influence?  Not necessarily a decision of 'I'm going to be gay.'

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=11007.msg106409#msg106409 date=1112226528]
Just change 'gay' and 'homophobic' to 'black' and 'racist' in all your arguments, and you'll see where I'm coming from.
[/quote]

There is your problem. You automatically assume because somebody talks poorly about a group of people that they are racist, etc. If I were to say "I don't like the way that gay men choose draperies," you would break out into song and dance about how homophobic I am. If I were to say "I saw a black guy selling weed to kids in the school yard today," you'd freak on me screaming racism.

By surrounding yourself around gay people you are choosing that way.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11007.msg106434#msg106434 date=1112232420]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=11007.msg106409#msg106409 date=1112226528]
Just change 'gay' and 'homophobic' to 'black' and 'racist' in all your arguments, and you'll see where I'm coming from.
[/quote]

There is your problem. You automatically assume because somebody talks poorly about a group of people that they are racist, etc. If I were to say "I don't like the way that gay men choose draperies," you would break out into song and dance about how homophobic I am. If I were to say "I saw a black guy selling weed to kids in the school yard today," you'd freak on me screaming racism.
[/quote]

But would you say "I saw a white guy..." or would you say "I saw a guy..."?  I catch myself sometimes sayin black guy when it isn't necessary, just out of societical habit

honestlly craz3d as I think it has already been pointed out I think you guys just pissed the wrong people off.  Some one(with powere in levi) had a  son who wanted to join but was denied because he was gay/atheist.  It might be hypocritical, but you are the guys asking for a hand out not levi so the best you can do is grin and bare it.

All I am trying to point out is that they are being hypocritical.

sort of, it really all depends on if you consider homosexuality genetic or choosen.  If you consider it to be the latter yes they are being hypocritical, however if you consider it to be the former they are not.

Science currently says it is chosen

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106466#msg106466 date=1112240148]
All I am trying to point out is that they are being hypocritical.
[/quote]

Yeah, damned hypocrites at LS&Co shouldn't be allowed to decide who they fund, they should accept everyone with open arms just as the BSA does.  Oh yeah, that's right...

Have you read ANY of this thread?

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11007.msg106434#msg106434 date=1112232420]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=11007.msg106409#msg106409 date=1112226528]
Just change 'gay' and 'homophobic' to 'black' and 'racist' in all your arguments, and you'll see where I'm coming from.
[/quote]

There is your problem. You automatically assume because somebody talks poorly about a group of people that they are racist, etc. If I were to say "I don't like the way that gay men choose draperies," you would break out into song and dance about how homophobic I am. If I were to say "I saw a black guy selling weed to kids in the school yard today," you'd freak on me screaming racism.
[/quote]

What a lovely paragraph of meaningless conjecture. That's all complete nonsense. What I assume is that a group that rejects someone based on a physical characteristic is racist, homophobic, sexist, or prejudiced in some manner. I think that assumption is valid.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106478#msg106478 date=1112243569]
Science currently says it is chosen
[/quote]

You've agreed in a previous thread that it's partially genetic. Therefore, it is not completely chosen. Surely that reasoning is obvious?

On the subject of science, well... I don't think science really knows yet. One study says it's a choice, another doesn't, another says it's both. We know there's definitely a genetic factor, and an environmental one too. We just don't know how they work together, or which is more influential. I don't really care if it's a choice or not, because I don't think it matters. It's irrelevant, because being gay has no relevance to someone's job performance; that is, unless you follow an archaic, outdated 2000-year-old morality with no base in reason.

I don't think I'm going to respond to your posts anymore. As previously noted, our positions are so far apart that there can't be any common ground. A debate in the absence of firm evidence or points of agreement is futile.

racism<>homophobia<>sexism
Race & sex is something (generally with out extreme effort) one cannot change.

Sexuality is 50/50 according to 2 studies that I read.  So, if 1 ½ of a person is TOTALLY gay & the environment is TOTALLY straight, then you'd get a screwed up person, otherwise if the environment is TOTALLY striaght, that should cancel out any 'gayness' a person has.

So, morality is outdated?  The fact that murder is WRONG should be revised?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106539#msg106539 date=1112281649]
So, morality is outdated?  The fact that murder is WRONG should be revised?
[/quote]

Absolutely. Pulling the plug on a brain-dead person is OK. Even if you're killing the body.

I don't think that qualifies as murder.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106539#msg106539 date=1112281649]
racism<>homophobia<>sexism
Race & sex is something (generally with out extreme effort) one cannot change.

Sexuality is 50/50 according to 2 studies that I read.  So, if 1 ½ of a person is TOTALLY gay & the environment is TOTALLY straight, then you'd get a screwed up person, otherwise if the environment is TOTALLY striaght, that should cancel out any 'gayness' a person has.
[/quote]

I have talked much about this with both science in mind and environmental and it seems that it tends to be more environmental then genetic, but not by much (say about 55/45).  Even if you are born with homosexual tendencies, it does not mean you are a homosexual, and vice versa.  To me, it seems more of a mental thing.  But one can never be sure.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=11007.msg106543#msg106543 date=1112284585]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106539#msg106539 date=1112281649]
So, morality is outdated?  The fact that murder is WRONG should be revised?
[/quote]

Absolutely. Pulling the plug on a brain-dead person is OK. Even if you're killing the body.
[/quote]

I believe that murder does not apply to this situation, because if the person is brain dead (as in they cannot do anything by their own will except for involentary motions), I feel that they have already died.  All that is left is a body, even though it appears to be living on its own.  Humans have involentary actions that the brain and body carries out even if there is no one telling it to happen.  Letting the body go is like nature taking its course, and if they are brain dead, they feel no pain, they just fall into a sleep while their body is shutting down.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106539#msg106539 date=1112281649]
So, morality is outdated?  The fact that murder is WRONG should be revised?
[/quote]

You're using an example of morality that is completley obvious to everyone as *wrong* [to murder someone]; obviously some parts of the 'archaic and out-dated morality' is still applicable to the modern world, but much of it isn't.

Anyways, I feel this thread is going off topic from the original topic of discussion, and it's clearly going no where; it's the same arguments back and forth with little to no compromise/progress.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106524#msg106524 date=1112278817]
Have you read ANY of this thread?
[/quote]

Yes, I have read every post.  Your arguement has always been that homosexuality is immoral, and therefore the BSA is in the right for not allowing them to join.  You then proceed to argue that by not funding the BSA, LS&Co has condemned nearly 5 million children to become the dregs of society.  You THEN say that the BSA not allowing homosexuals to join is just one of the things that "have to be sacrificed for the greater good".

The thing that you seemingly fail to understand though, is that your arguements for not allowing homosexuals to join are some of the same arguements that Hitler and his regime used for killing Jews, and that the KKK uses for terrorizing black people.  I'm NOT saying that the BSA is going to start rounding up homosexuals and gassing or lynching them, but I AM saying that teaching discrimination is NOT for the greater good.

Arta, lets not forget that all too often homophobic ideas can be correct. For instance, a BSA scout leader was just convicted of owning child pornography, he was definetly a homosexual man.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11007.msg106595#msg106595 date=1112296328]
Arta, lets not forget that all too often homophobic ideas can be correct. For instance, a BSA scout leader was just convicted of owning child pornography, he was definetly a homosexual man.
[/quote]

Haha this is a classic statement. Since when does homosexuality have anything to do with child pornography? What if he was looking at female children? Then he is still a homosexual?!

Edit: What if he never looked at child pornography until he joined the BSA at which time he became interested in child pornography because he was around male children all the time (I read the article and it says he was an administrative person, but even so...)?

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11007.msg106595#msg106595 date=1112296328]
Arta, lets not forget that all too often homophobic ideas can be correct. For instance, a BSA scout leader was just convicted of owning child pornography, he was definetly a homosexual man.
[/quote]

Homophobia as NOTHING to do with paedophilia. Being homosexual has NOTHING to do with being a paedophile. The fact that he was gay has NOTHING to do with it. The fact that he is a paedophile has EVERYTHING to do with it and he should OBVIOUSLY not be in a job with childeren.

To compare the two is disingenuous at worst and ignorant at best.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=11007.msg106606#msg106606 date=1112300884]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11007.msg106595#msg106595 date=1112296328]
Arta, lets not forget that all too often homophobic ideas can be correct. For instance, a BSA scout leader was just convicted of owning child pornography, he was definetly a homosexual man.
[/quote]

Homophobia as NOTHING to do with paedophilia. Being homosexual has NOTHING to do with being a paedophile. The fact that he was gay has NOTHING to do with it. The fact that he is a paedophile has EVERYTHING to do with it and he should OBVIOUSLY not be in a job with childeren.

To compare the two is disingenuous at worst and ignorant at best.
[/quote]

Was he even homosexual?

Yes, he was. Read the briefs you can find them at http://news.yahoo.com.

For God's sake. It doesn't matter... homosexual != paedophile.

I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.

Jews aren't homosexuals nor are blacks gays.  Big difference.  You can't change being jewish/black as easily as you can sexual preferences.  You are BORN as a Jew or a black person, you are born straight.

When did I say LS&Co is condeming us?...I just said they aren't supporting a VERY good cause.

No, I never said we deny homosexuals because it is for the greater good, I said we deny them because the way they live is immoral.  I said LS&Co should fund us eventhough we deny membership to homosexuals because helping the scouts is better than 'unopressing the homosexuals '

But you can't overlook the fact that this guy was a homosexual, it maybe have had an influence on his actions.  He was immoral in that way, why not another way also?

I give up. To be honest, I don't care what any of you think anymore. This has ceased to be entertaining.

If you want to be bigots, that's your business.

[quote]I said LS&Co should fund us eventhough we deny membership to homosexuals[/quote]

Why should they dish out money to you if they believe what you are doing is wrong?  Do you donate to NAMBLA frequentlly?

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=11007.msg106665#msg106665 date=1112320541]
I give up. To be honest, I don't care what any of you think anymore. This has ceased to be entertaining.
If you want to be bigots, that's your business.
[/quote]Technically, I believe you are a bigot too.

You're missing the point Forge, they supported us then withdrew because we discriminate.  They knew we discriminated before funding us.  They are being hypocritical of themselves

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11007.msg106622#msg106622 date=1112310723]
Yes, he was. Read the briefs you can find them at http://news.yahoo.com.
[/quote]

[quote]
If convicted, Smith could get a prison term of five to 20 years, NBC News reported. The report also cited sources who said the investigation of the charge began in Germany and involved images of young boys.

Smith, who lives near BSA headquarters in the suburban Dallas-Ft. Worth area, had been with the youth organization for 39 years and held the post of national director of programs.
[/quote]

Are you saying he's homosexual, yet has been with BSA for 39 years? BSA makes exceptions for rich homosexuals?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106658#msg106658 date=1112319254]
Jews aren't homosexuals nor are blacks gays.  Big difference.  You can't change being jewish/black as easily as you can sexual preferences.  You are BORN as a Jew or a black person, you are born straight.
[/quote]

Actually, being jew is a choice. Any religion is a choice. They could convert to christianity or even become muslims if they wanted to. Blacks... Well, look at Michael Jackson.


[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106658#msg106658 date=1112319254]
But you can't overlook the fact that this guy was a homosexual, it maybe have had an influence on his actions.  He was immoral in that way, why not another way also?
[/quote]

Has no bearing at all, being homosexual isn't immoral :P

I guess he ain't homosexual.  I thought maybe I had missed it the first time I read it so I took Hazard's word for it.  oops? ::)

People are born into a religion or they aren't, everyone is born straight.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106713#msg106713 date=1112367417]
People are born into a religion or they aren't, everyone is born straight.
[/quote]

That's absolutely not true. Religion is one of those things you can change around as you please. You may be born into a religious family, and believe that you were born some particular religion, but that's 100% environment effects. And I think everyone agreed before that being straight or gay was about 50% born and 50% environment.

Yeah, but I still believe that people born straight because their environment doesn't exsist & they can't percieve anything yet

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11007.msg106722#msg106722 date=1112369504]
Yeah, but I still believe that pe0ple b0rn straight because their envir0nment d0esn't exsist & they can't percieve anything yet
[/quote]

Hmmno, what was said about that earlier was that homosexuality was somewhere around 50-50 environment and born. This could mean that someone is born a homosexual boy, but grows up surrounded by girls only and never gets a chance to develop his homosexuality because he never sees any other of his own gender. Or that he's born into a society where homosexuality is punishable by death, and is forced to suppress his homosexuality.

Religion isn't a property of a newborn child because if a child of muslim parents is raised in a christian family, it won't retain muslim values, pray like a muslim, etc.