Gays in Scouting (I think)

PianoManGidley · **Posted:** Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:54 pm

lahimatoa wrote:

Couldn't agree with you more, PianoMan. Everything you said could have been a post by me, except for the socially liberal part.

Does that mean I'm moderate, too?

Could be...*GASP!* Two people that are (supposedly) from opposite sides of the political spectrum agreeing with each other on certain issues...and GETTING ALONG!! The world's gonna end!

Heh...sorry...someone needs to toastpaint this before I eat all the remaining bread.

Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest · **Posted:** Sun Jun 11, 2006 10:46 am

uhh... has this thread been split in two or something? i dont egt where the first post is coming from...

Beyond the Grave · **Posted:** Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:40 pm

Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest wrote:

uhh... has this thread been split in two or something? i dont egt where the first post is coming from...

It was taken from the Pet Peeves thread. They left off my post that really started this disscussion.

StrongRad · **Posted:** Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:26 pm

Beyond the Grave wrote:

Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest wrote:

uhh... has this thread been split in two or something? i dont egt where the first post is coming from...

It was taken from the Pet Peeves thread. They left off my post that really started this disscussion.

Ooops.. Sorry bout that. I split it and I thought I got them all, but I musta missed your post. Sorry bout that, BTG.

Duecex2 · **Posted:** Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:21 pm

In my Boy Scout troop, some people (like me) pretend they're gay for the fun of it. Call me immature.

Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest · **Posted:** Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:59 pm

duecex2 wrote:

In my Boy Scout troop, some people (like me) pretend they're gay for the fun of it. Call me immature.

.....

Occasional JD · **Posted:** Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:03 am

Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest wrote:

duecex2 wrote:

In my Boy Scout troop, some people (like me) pretend they're gay for the fun of it. Call me immature.

.....

Do you run around saying, "I'M FAAAAAAAAAAAAAANCY!" or do you just stand up during conversations ang yell, "Jeez, I'm gay! Get over it!"?

Wesstarrunner · **Posted:** Sun Jul 16, 2006 8:52 pm

This is why I don't join the boy scouts.

#1: Not as much time for me and my Lappy

#2: That gay stuff is weird and people shouldn't pretend to be against nature and many, many religions. And also if your really gay... :eek:

PianoManGidley · **Posted:** Sun Jul 16, 2006 8:58 pm

Wesstarrunner wrote:

#2: That gay stuff is weird and people shouldn't pretend to be against nature and many, many religions. And also if your really gay... :eek:

Ugh...you really are misinformed. Homosexuality is not against nature.

Scott Bidstrup wrote:

Well, that's probably the weakest argument of all, since biologists frequently see homosexual behavior in other animal species, and in livestock ranching, homosexual behavior is so common it is considered a problem. Homosexual behaviors have been noted in every primate species so far studied, and in man's closest living relatives, the bonobo chimpanzees, bisexual behavior is universal.

Among humans, homosexuality is found in all cultures and with about the same frequency it is found in America. Cultural norms seem to have little influence on the incidence of homosexual behavior. So the claim that it isn't natural becomes rather difficult to support.

IantheGecko · **Posted:** Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:31 pm

It may be natural, but that doesn't make it right. Humans, as animals, have a nature to kill. In the animal world, it's normal, but in the human race, it's cruel unless justified.

furrykef · **Posted:** Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:35 pm

IantheGecko wrote:

It may be natural, but that doesn't make it right. Humans, as animals, have a nature to kill. In the animal world, it's normal, but in the human race, it's cruel unless justified.

True. But it means there's one less thing that could make it wrong. Really, "it's unnatural" is about the only valid secular argument that you could make. That, or "it's disgusting", which is obviously a subjective argument. (My opinion is that most objections to homosexuality really come down to "it's disgusting" and not any "moral values". The morality thing is, in my opinion, usually rationalization. Not always, but usually.)

- Kef

fossilise_apostle · **Posted:** Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:08 am

IantheGecko wrote:

It may be natural, but that doesn't make it right. Humans, as animals, have a nature to kill. In the animal world, it's normal, but in the human race, it's cruel unless justified.

don't compare homosexuality to murder.

As XTC say, [img]"any%20kind%20of%20love%20is%20all%20alright"[/img]

Didymus · **Posted:** Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:18 am

I disagree. Adultery isn't alright, I don't care what XTC says.

IantheGecko · **Posted:** Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:30 am

Well, fossil, they're both "natural" in the animal kingdom. We're animals. We eat, we kill, we die. Some of us mate with the opposite sex, others with the same. This apparently happens somewhat often in the animal kingdom, but as rational, highly intelligent beings, we view murder & homosexuality as wrong.

Didymus · **Posted:** Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:32 am

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Scouts have a religious origin? That being the case, then there's really no need to restrict argumentation against homosexuality to purely secular arguments.

furrykef · **Posted:** Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:33 am

IantheGecko wrote:

as rational, highly intelligent beings, we view murder & homosexuality as wrong.

And just what is so rational and intelligent about viewing homosexuality as wrong? There are a great many homophobes who are neither. There are religious arguments, of course, but arguably that has nothing to do with the rationality or intelligence of mankind. (Not to say that religious beliefs aren't rational or intelligent, just that they aren't necessarily so, either.)

Didymus wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Scouts have a religious origin? That being the case, then there's really no need to restrict argumentation against homosexuality to purely secular arguments.

What matters isn't really the origin so much as the basis for their beliefs now.

- Kef

IantheGecko · **Posted:** Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:37 am

Having sex with someone of the same sex is irrational to me, simple as that. It doesn't make any sense.

furrykef · **Posted:** Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:38 am

IantheGecko wrote:

Having sex with someone of the same sex is irrational to me, simple as that. It doesn't make any sense.

Why does it have to make sense? We don't have to make up "rational" reasons to prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla.

- Kef

Didymus · **Posted:** Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:45 am

Quote:

What matters isn't really the origin so much as the basis for their beliefs now.

- Kef

And the last time I checked, their belief NOW is that homosexuality is inappropriate.

furrykef · **Posted:** Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:48 am

Didymus wrote:

And the last time I checked, their belief NOW is that homosexuality is inappropriate.

That's not the point. Are they primarily a spiritual organization, or a secular one? Smack dab in the middle, maybe? (I'm guessing "in the middle".) But whatever the answer is, I don't see how excluding gays would make them a better organization, no matter your point of view. It'd only be "better" if you're a homophobe.

Also, regardless of the answer, there's still the question of government funding. I think as long as they discriminate against gays, they shouldn't get government funding, period.

- Kef

Didymus · **Posted:** Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:52 am

Quote:

It'd only be "better" if you're a homophobe.

OR someone who's religious and moral convictions are that it's inappropriate. Labeling people as "homophobes" is not the same as presenting sound reasoning against their beliefs.

furrykef · **Posted:** Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:54 am

Didymus wrote:

Quote:

It'd only be "better" if you're a homophobe.

OR someone who's religious and moral convictions are that it's inappropriate.

What does it matter? If your religious and moral convictions state that homosexuality is wrong, does that mean you can't work with gay people? Working with people you disagree with doesn't make an organization worse... if you can get along despite your differences, it may well make it better!

firemarc924 · **Posted:** Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:06 pm

About Boy scout, im in a troop, and the morally straight thing was kind of a joke. :mrgreen:

Well, its also kind of religious to. Im pretty sure you cant be Pagan or Atheist or anything like that. Thats also in the scout Oath and Law.

scout oath
on my honor I wil do my best, to do my duty to GOD and my country, to obey the scout law, and keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.

scout law
A scout is trustwrothy, loyal, helpful, friendly, curtious, kind, obiedient, thrifty, brave, clean, and REVERENT.

PianoManGidley · **Posted:** Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:43 pm

firemarc924 wrote:

About Boy scout, im in a troop, and the morally straight thing was kind of a joke. :mrgreen:

Well, its also kind of religious to. Im pretty sure you cant be Pagan or Atheist or anything like that. Thats also in the scout Oath and Law.

scout oath
on my honor I wil do my best, to do my duty to GOD and my country, to obey the scout law, and keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.

scout law
A scout is trustwrothy, loyal, helpful, friendly, curtious, kind, obiedient, thrifty, brave, clean, and REVERENT.

True, but you can be of a religious belief other than Christian and still believe in God and be reverent and stuff. There were some Muslim kids in my boy scout troop. So I don't see why at least Pagans (depending on their specific Pagan beliefs) couldn't join. Atheists, I could understand, though....not saying I agree with their religious discimination, but if that's how their organization is structured, then that's how their organization is structured.

StrongRad · **Posted:** Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:17 pm

PianoManGidley wrote:

There were some Muslim kids in my boy scout troop. So I don't see why at least Pagans (depending on their specific Pagan beliefs) couldn't join.

Wouldn't the difference be that Muslims still, more or less, believe in the same God as Christians? Unless I remember incorrectly, they also believe in the God of Abraham.

PianoManGidley · **Posted:** Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:32 pm

StrongRad wrote:

PianoManGidley wrote:

There were some Muslim kids in my boy scout troop. So I don't see why at least Pagans (depending on their specific Pagan beliefs) couldn't join.

Wouldn't the difference be that Muslims still, more or less, believe in the same God as Christians? Unless I remember incorrectly, they also believe in the God of Abraham.

The thing is that the Boy Scouts' oath does not specify God, so you could worship a piece of cheese and call it God and you should still have your religious belief tolerated and respected. In fact, I know an Atheist that said that if he had to be in a situation where he was required to recognize God (such as if you want to hold political office in the state of Texas), then he would just call himself God.

furrykef · **Posted:** Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:52 pm

StrongRad wrote:

Wouldn't the difference be that Muslims still, more or less, believe in the same God as Christians? Unless I remember incorrectly, they also believe in the God of Abraham.

They do. In fact, "Allah" is Arabic for God, period; Arabic-speaking Christians refer to God as Allah as well. (If anybody ever tries to tell you that Allah is obviously a different god because they call him "Allah", my recommendation is to get right in his face and laugh as loud as you can. After all, even the word "God" is only an English name.)

PianoManGidley wrote:

The thing is that the Boy Scouts' oath does not specify God, so you could worship a piece of cheese and call it God and you should still have your religious belief tolerated and respected.

Which of course raises the point: in that case, why require spirituality at all?

Quote:

know an Atheist that said that if he had to be in a situation where he was required to recognize God (such as if you want to hold political office in the state of Texas)

What exactly is this requirement?

- Kef

PianoManGidley · **Posted:** Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:46 pm

furrykef wrote:

Quote:

know an Atheist that said that if he had to be in a situation where he was required to recognize God (such as if you want to hold political office in the state of Texas)

What exactly is this requirement?

- Kef

Apparently, to hold any sort of political office in the state of Texas, you have to recognize God as being existent...which is just another way they try to keep Conservativism in power, by not tolerating someone's Constitutional right to be Atheist.

furrykef · **Posted:** Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:48 pm

Wouldn't that be a direct violation of the First Amendment?

PianoManGidley · **Posted:** Mon Jul 17, 2006 7:06 pm

furrykef wrote:

Wouldn't that be a direct violation of the First Amendment?

Yes it would, but...it appears here in the Texas Constitution, in an article in its Bill of Rights that says "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." (Important part bolded by me.)

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Gays in Scouting (I think)

Who is online