You seem to have missed the first few questions cone asked above . . hopefully that was accident and not avoidance.
I would ask how you are standing up for those others in their different opinions from your own? You seem to define tolerance only in terms of your own belief of right and wrong without respecting their point of view. Respect doesn’t mean we have to agree with all of points of view, of course.
Last night I met a man who has directly contributed to the ruin of at least 3 marriages and who is determined to continue in his own exclusive interest regardless of the pains created. He said he regretted the moral dilemmas he had created for others in their behavior toward him (claiming a moral high ground vs some of them). He explained he was molested as a child by men and women, along with parents who did not protect him regarding their sexual mores. He also claimed to love his 4 young daughters having “protected” them from such pain. I also met his awesome ex-wife who never saw it coming. This is a man proud to have pulled himself up and made something of himself - to have gotten his life set correct for 8 of the last 10 years. Now he thinks he’s being discriminated because he won’t fully continue to be accepted on his terms. He may move to another town so that he has a clean slate . . to meet his notion of how fairness ought to work in society.
IMO, it is completely unreasonable to suggest that someone with a different viewpoint is entitled to be given a fiduciary responsibility to satisfy a general notion of fairness. A fiduciary responsibility is specific to the charge (and giver), not general beliefs. I seriously doubt any gay rights group is giving the BSA charge of their funds for PSAs, much less allowing the setting community standards to which they willingly subscribe. Frankly, the group providing service for children holds a bit higher ground than groups demanding rights for themselves, IMO.
Excluding a class of men that includes some who will perform or advocate man/boy love is a protection to the children who are not there to be educated about volunteers’ sexuality. People who don’t get that should be next on the list in understanding something called priorities - the kids are more important than the volunteers’ extraneous opinions - and those are more important than those of the general public.
To remove the rest who lie about it remains a goal . . when there is a failure, it is due to failure or failures to follow other common sense rules.
If they excluded all liars then there would be no organization to serve the kids. Based on my own kids’ participation, I’d have pulled my kids from a group with a leader that expressed opinions like the above - the leader must be there to protect my kids as I would, not for their own idea of political correctness.
scaru, I just reread all of this, and realized I missed commenting on this. You and I interpret the quote the same way, but only one of us is living it. If you were, you’d be pro BSA for BSA choosing to run their PRIVATE organization any (legal) way they see fit regardless of whether you felt they were right or wrong in their beliefs. Free speech is an ugly business because it protects the very speech most of us find repugnant.
[quote=cone]
"I think it is better for people to come to realize those on their own and not through being told if they don't they will go to hell". Sooner or later, we all find our way home. I'm not aware that Scout Masters were telling kids gay people are going to hell. Seriously, that does not happen. You know that, right. There is a fine line between friendly philosophical discussions and proselytizing to be sure. All people sometimes cross the line. That does not invalidate the message, however. Foy can be too much sometimes, but SF still makes great hosts (I don't think Foy ever has gone too far in his exuberance, I'm just trying to give a non offensive example, so, Foy, please indulge and forgive me).
[/quote]
You misunderstood me. When I said that I was talking about the core values that you previosly mentioned; duty, community, self reliance, charity, country, skills, and teamwork.
No, the discrimination would not bother me. Mainly because traditionally women have been discriminated against more than men. And that is a private business and they can do what they please. While the same can be said about the BSA I find it hypocritical that the boy scout oath says they have to try to be morally straight yet the continue to be part of a organization such as the BSA.
Sorry, I thought I made my stance clear on that. In order to follow their scout oath they need to be morally straight. IMO to do that they should support gay rights and not grow up as a ignorant homophobic youth. I'm not syaing they can't have that viewpoint, it just is hypocritical to have that viewpoint.
I don’t want to get all Spock on you, but your logic is flawed. It is completely consistent to take an oath to be “morally straight” then not be supportive of an issue you find immoral. I would suggest further reading.
To certain extent, yes, and when it is discriminating against a majority (around 50.24%) it is also not as offensive.
I don't think you can say that the BSA believes it is moral. There are multiple people on the board of directors that openly spoken out against the BSAs policies. Here one article is.
Scaru, leaving aside my question as to how you got “multiple” from “Randall Stephenson is one of two Boy Scouts of America board members who supports amending the policy.”, I am sure plenty of Scouts and Scout leaders are supportive of “Gay rights”. That has nothing to do with the official policy of the organization. Don’t mix apples and oranges.
And as you article points out, there is an evolution afoot at BSA… Patience is a virtue. Sometimes it it is better to take the long view. Especially when fighting a land war in SWA.
And while males in this country are in a mathematical majority, 50.24% it is cutting it pretty close based on the context of this discussion. Also, I’m a bit alarmed at the inconsistency on your feelings about “discrimination”. Sometimes it is OK? So everything is subjective? Situational Ethics is how we should live our lives? If so, why are we worried about the morality, which should be static, of the BSA?
First of all multiple is more than 1. I had originally thought it said 3 but 2 is still multiple. :)
There is a effort going underway but if you were following the recent decision regarding it you would have read that it was a unanimous decision not to change the rule. This means 2 things, first of all not the whole board of directors was part of the group considering it. Second of all, this means that most likely a select group of people was chosen that they knew would vote in favor of not changing it.
Yes, when it is in the forum of a private restaraunt deciding to only serve women that is perfectly ok with me. I can just as easily go to another restaurant. I am simply picking and choosing my fights, I can't fight about everything. And yes, situational ethics are how I live my life. As a good friend of mine once said "Life isn't binary, it's hex code. "
I was just having fun with ya regarding “multiple”; you are correct about the definition, but the connotation is such that it implies a fairly large group.
So after using the article to imply that even the leadership doesn’t believe in the policy, now you are saying that they do?
We are going down the rabbit hole now. I thought the topic was whether or not the BSA has the right to exclude certain people.
Can’t the atheists and homosexuals also go and start another Scouting type group that excludes homephobes?
The fact that you don’t have a North Star is going to make it hard, for me personally, to have a rational conversation with you. I enjoy talking to people I don’t necessarily agree with, but you’ll never persuade people to your position if you aren’t quite sure of where it is yourself.
First, I had said that the BSA does not believe it is moral. This is true because 2 people on the board believe it is not moral. Thus it is not unanimous. However the person that decided who was on the group obviously believes it is moral. I hope this makes sense.
Either way the BSA definitely has the right to exclude certain people, and I think they should be allowed to. However I wish they did not exercise that right.