Boy Scouts of America votes to ease ban on gay members

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by garren

I thought gay men were men and gay women were women and that men and women already had equal rights? So gay rights is a special rights system based on a person's sexual interests is it not?

Are you taking the piss?

Because otherwise I'll have to recalibrate.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by garren

I thought gay men were men and gay women were women and that men and women already had equal rights? So gay rights is a special rights system based on a person's sexual interests is it not?

Call it rights for every individual. Take the word gay out of it. Right of marriage, etc. Right of the marriage tax penalty.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by garren

I'm not knocking anything. I'm just going to go all out now. Because if gays can have special rights for their sexual preferences than so should everyone else who might not have a sexual preference that is deemed kosher.

Thing is ...first sorry for the last line of my post, it was mean, and you were so nice and ignored it, I really am a piece of crap at times.


Gays do not have special rights, you know what happens with insurance companies when a gay lover tries to claim monies?

How about the social scorn?

You can be disgusted by the lifestyle, that is fine, I cannot judge you on that, but to minimize them as human beings is what disgusts me.

Makes us no different from the Nazis, busting up stores whos owners names ended in Stein, or berg.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

Makes us no different from the Nazis, busting up stores whos owners names ended in Stein, or berg.

Nazis were not fond of gays or the mentally challenged for that matter.

[garren]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Giving them the same rights that a heterosexual couple enjoy is not a special right. Separate but equal is not equal.

But at least a heterosexual couple is a diverse couple comprised of both a man and a woman. A gay couple isn't celebrating diversity at all and doesn't go towards promoting positive relations between males and females nor does it produce living offspring. Suppose every kid grows up to be gay one day. How is that good for humanity? They are different (and I don't mean that to be mean towards them but to be honest). Should we allow straight men to participate in the Miss America Beauty pageant? What about showing the Duke's of Hazard on the BET channel? Sometimes lines are drawn in the sand for a reason. Not to be offensive but to keep humanity going. Suppose if all women who have abortion rights decide to abort all their children from now on. That's the end of humanity. Why give women that sort of power? Would men really just sit back and let women end the world? Think the government would come in and take women's right to abort away if that became the norm?

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by garren

A gay couple isn't celebrating diversity at all and doesn't go towards promoting positive relations between males and females nor does it produce living offspring.

Gay couples do have kids, via surrogacy or adoption.

Suppose every kid grows up to be gay one day. How is that good for humanity?

Suppose coffee machines gain sentience and enslave mankind? How is that good for humanity?

Suppose the Moon isn't really there?

Just posing a few similarly absurd hypotheticals.

EDIT - I see you've added some more stupid questions regarding worldwide abortion and the END OF HUMANITY. Same goes for those.

They are different (and I don't mean that to be mean towards them but to be honest). Should we allow straight men to participate in the Miss America Beauty pageant? What about showing the Duke's of Hazard on the BET channel?

You see these issues as being on the same level as equal rights for homosexuals.

That tells me an awful lot.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by garren

But at least a heterosexual couple is a diverse couple comprised of both a man and a woman. A gay couple isn't celebrating diversity at all and doesn't go towards promoting positive relations between males and females nor does it produce living offspring. Suppose every kid grows up to be gay one day. How is that good for humanity? They are different (and I don't mean that to be mean towards them but to be honest). Should we allow straight men to participate in the Miss America Beauty pageant? What about showing the Duke's of Hazard on the BET channel?

In the name of diversity there should not be homosexual. Interesting. Everyone becoming gay? Highly unlikely. I would like to participate in the Ms. American Contest. Dukes of Hazard is not what folks that watch BET want to watch. Simple business decision.

[August]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I'm uncomfortable with anyone, other than my wife, looking at my privates.

This is one of the ideas behind segregating sexes. The concept that nobody need feel bashful (or at least feel less so) around people who don't have a reason to look. I don't see why this concept remains valid for gender but not sexuality when they are basically the same in their effect upon the group.

What mixing genders OR allowing open homosexuality does is completely change the social dynamic of any group by adding a whole new layer of complexity to it and I think in the case of the Boy Scouts it is a level of complexity that is unhealthy and unnecessary. The Scouts are not supposed to be about sex of any kind.

Trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. That is what they are there to learn.

I believe anything else is best reserved for learning about elsewhere.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by garren

But at least a heterosexual couple is a diverse couple comprised of both a man and a woman. A gay couple isn't celebrating diversity

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

at all and doesn't go towards promoting positive relations between males and females

From what I can tell, neither do a lot of straight marriages.

nor does it produce living offspring.

Neither do straight couples who are unable to conceive or carry a child to term successfully or who simply decide not to reproduce. How long should we let them stay together before we invalidate their union? Just asking.

Suppose every kid grows up to be gay one day.

Then the future will be FAB-ulous, dahling!

[garren]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.



From what I can tell, neither do a lot of straight marriages.



Neither do straight couples who are unable to conceive or carry a child to term successfully or who simply decide not to reproduce. How long should we let them stay together before we invalidate their union? Just asking.



Then the future will be FAB-ulous, dahling!

I'm just not for changing history or tradition at all. Straight couples marrying does not harm gay couples. Why can't they just create their own religion and their own form of marriage separate from heterosexual marriages and Christian religion? Why intrude on our way of life and our traditions and make a mockery of them? The future doesn't look too fabulous to me when a divide in the sexes to the place that men and women no longer want to be involved with one another. Seems like hell to me.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by August

This is one of the ideas behind segregating sexes. The concept that nobody need feel bashful (or at least feel less so) around people who don't have a reason to look. I don't see why this concept remains valid for gender but not sexuality when they are basically the same in their effect upon the group.

What mixing genders OR allowing open homosexuality does is completely change the social dynamic of any group by adding a whole new layer of complexity to it and I think in the case of the Boy Scouts it is a level of complexity that is unhealthy and unnecessary. The Scouts are not supposed to be about sex of any kind.

Trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. That is what they are there to learn.

I believe anything else is best reserved for learning about elsewhere.

August, they are not initiating a, "Let's Learn Gay" merit badge.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by garren

I'm just not for changing history or tradition at all. Straight couples marrying does not harm gay couples. Why can't they just create their own religion and their own form of marriage separate from heterosexual marriages and Christian religion? Why intrude on our way of life and our traditions and make a mockery of them? The future doesn't look too fabulous to me when a divide in the sexes to the place that men and women no longer want to be involved with one another. Seems like hell to me.

You do not have to attend their church. Their wedding. Their cookout. You do not have to invite them over. In doing so no one is intruding on anyone. Fences make great neighbors.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by August

What mixing genders OR allowing open homosexuality does is completely change the social dynamic of any group by adding a whole new layer of complexity to it and I think in the case of the Boy Scouts it is a level of complexity that is unhealthy and unnecessary. The Scouts are not supposed to be about sex of any kind.

That's a fair point but do you think the discriminatory and exclusionary step of refusing access to all gay people goes too far?

Also, how does allowing gay people in suddenly make it all about sex?

Surely it's as focused on sex as the old rulebook was, ie rules about what orientations were and were not allowed. There's your first level of complexity right there.

Also as far as changing social group dynamics, can it not be said that doing so in this case allows it to reflect more accurately the society we live in?

Trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. That is what they are there to learn.

I believe anything else is best reserved for learning about elsewhere.

Agreed entirely. It's not like lifting the ban on gay people will add the word "homosexual" to that list. Also I think it would serve to underline the "friendly, courteous, kind & reverent" part of the list

It's not as if gay people who want to be scout leaders are interested in anything other than what you mentioned. Blocking them out gives the idea that gay people can't be trusted not to make everything about sex.

EDIT - I see AVG made the same point but better, while I was typing

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by garren

I'm just not for changing history or tradition at all. Straight couples marrying does not harm gay couples. Why can't they just create their own religion and their own form of marriage separate from heterosexual marriages and Christian religion? Why intrude on our way of life and our traditions and make a mockery of them? The future doesn't look too fabulous to me when a divide in the sexes to the place that men and women no longer want to be involved with one another. Seems like hell to me.

I'm sorry, but it's already too late for you. The truth is that just reading this thread has made you gay. That's how it works, you know? It's like cooties only with sexual orientation. In a few days you'll start feeling the urge to buy new window treatments and download a Barbra Streisand album.

[garren]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Dukes of Hazard is not what folks that watch BET want to watch. Simple business decision.

With a taint of racism included in that business decision. Just read an article today on yahoo in which Samsung made some commercial that depicted men as lazy inferior beings who sit on the couch and do nothing. This woman plugs some sort of electronic device into his back and he's suddenly cleaning the house, feeding the baby, washing the floors, while she sits and does nothing. So men complain and say it's sexist. And some female reporter for yahoo claims that women can not be sexist towards men and only men can be sexist towards women and blacks can't be racist towards whites and only whites can be racist towards blacks. So what is a white Christian conservative heterosexual male supposed to do but think the whole bloody world is anti-him? How is current discrimination against this person OK? because his ancestors were discriminated against other groups so it makes it OK to discriminate against him today? We're not creating equality in this society. We're just flipping the script and turning the tables around on people and that's just going to lead to cyclical effect of never ending discrimination.