We have the Miss Black America, Miss Latina America, Miss Asian America.....and any of those girls are qualified to enter the just plain "Miss America" pageant, but if we were to have a Miss White America pageant it will be all over the news, there would be riots in the streets, mass murders, dogs and cats living together....it would be horrible.
True. But why?
Because for so long, if you were black, Asian or Latina, you didn't have a serious chance of being named Miss America. You got locked out, usually at the earliest levels. How long was Miss America around before they made room for a brown woman?
I'm not a fan of beauty pageants, so I'm the wrong one to speak on this subject, but now that non-white contestants have a decent shot at winning, I would have no problem dismantling all the Miss Color Pageants across the country.
The link didn't work but was able to find the site by cutting and pasting only as far as the .org.
I don't think that it has links with the world scouting movement so it can't really offer the alternative to BSA.
I love the "international" bit - have a few people dotted in two adjacent countries and hey you are international! :)--> (TWI is another example lol).
In mid Wales there is a tiny landing strip that can take two seater aircraft - it quite legitimately claims international status as occasionally a plane might fly from there into England! :)-->
The Scouts are dedicated to building character, honor, integrity and self motivation in young men.
I can't see where adding the sexual pressures and social pressures of ANY sexual activity should enter into this.
Parents should be able to be secure in knowing the boys won't be exposed to perverts.
Absolutely, sexuality shouldn't be an issue. How are you or anyone else secure in knowing the person that you have let your kid go and spend a weekend in the woods with will not harm him in some way?
I would assume the answer is that you know that person to a degree that you are comfortable with them. I know I wouldn't let it happen anyother way. So if there were a gay scout leader or a gay scout I would imagine that if you spent a little time with these people you get to know them and hopefully ultimately rule that they are harmless. If not, don't let your kid go on an outing with them.
On the other hand, if you just plainly think that gay people are by nature perverts, molesters, and/or pedophile rapists, well then that is just bigotry and ignorance. So if an organisation wants to uphold those standards then that is thier perogative, but again, don't then whine that everyone dosn't just love you.
When I was a scout this wasn't an issue. Most of the time kids this age aren't thinking about sex or are too unsureabout it to do or say much about it. Today may be a little differnt.
And Raf, I don't think that anyone is trying to force the BSA to be something they aren't, and I think there are some alternatives out there but nothing that is very big yet.
Still, it is a PUBLIC school, paid for by nondiscriminatory tax dollars. Therefore they can't or shouldn't allow a group that does discriminate use thier public facilities. There is nothing that should be upsetting about this.
Thank you, Lindy. It seems that this very simple concept is so hard for so many otherwise intelligentpeople to get.
If you wish to have a private organization like the BSA which chooses to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference or a private country club that discriminates against blacks or Jews-thats fine. Go ahead and indulge your prejudices. But don't expect to be accomodated by public facilities which are supported in part by my tax dollars.
The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.
How does your claim explain the fact many of the men who sexualy abuse are married with children of their own?
some molest girls , yes, yet a great deal of the success of this crime is due to its secret nature of lust and the illusion of appearing to live within normal society boundaries.
Ophrah states this all the time how a child molester is your uncle your neighbor your coach your dr. and the pillar of the commuity.
the high profiles cases such as the DR.'s of very sick children which are vey common in these parts (college town)have All had children and families of their own in the community and would live far above suspect.
I do not think homosexuals are child molesters neccesarily, I think child molesters can protray any life style they would chose to set as an image as all con men must. It would be much less under the microscope to NOT be openly "gay" in such a culture as ours, if you desire to molest children and get away without suspicsion of some sort.
the very nature of this crime demands one to be cunning and full of lies and deceit as a lifestyle to continue, undecteded,it would seem to me, a person willing to take on the role of being a homosexual openly in society would be above such and more comfortable in the acceptance of what he/she choses sexualy.
It is well documented that over 50% of child molester are TEENS, and many younger when they begin their practices of abuse.
In the boy scouts we have a group of boys often ranging in ages from preeteen or younger to grown adults thisis a PRIME time for molesters to begin the abuse!! Given the loyalty and man love that is instilled within the ranks of such groups, I think itwould be indeed difficult for a victim to say what may be happening right under the noses of innocent leaders and loving parents. No one wants to accuse another child of this type of behaviour much less another child that is seeking to please and excell within the group.
By the time a molester is grown up and of legal age to have sex the ritual of abuse is so well practiced and shamed into his abuse they rarely get caught. child molesters are not grown men getting creepy one day they are true con men able to avoid being accused with years of practice and lies, they are driven by a desire that forces them to live with society norms, with a passion that is out of control. MOST do not get caught because they appear as normal and often times very helpful and loving of children.
homosexuals who come out are ready and willing to live within the critical mass of a minority that has discrimination laws in place to protect them . It has always been two very different groups to me.
All your links are simply bogus. They are all by and for homosexuals trying to promote their agenda. The rhetoric is plainly "consensus facilitation 101" using such words as "myth" and phrases like "we all agree" etc. to discredit the opposing viewpoint.
You can see the same rhetoric in white supremicist literature to demonize blacks and the same rhetoric in anti gun literature to disguise their lies.
But parents have a right to protect their children from certain erroneous “teachings” as its completely alright and natural for boys to “like” each other in “that” way. But a homo cook at a Boy Scout camp took it upon himself to spread the word to over 200 Scouts. Fortunately the Scouts had a good enough relationship with their leaders to inform them of this and the man was removed immediately.
He never touched one, he believed he was right; so right he violated those boys without touching them.
I lived in Davis CA for a number of years during the clinton times.
I remember Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Judy Pertanski, the pervert weddings, the politically correct nonsense, "Davis, the First non nuclear city" etc etc etc.
Davis is the leftist hate and hypocrisy capitol of the northern hemisphere....southern, too.
Actually, I was considerably more moderate and "democrat" until I lived in Davis and got a huge dose of leftist reality.
Get it through you thick head, Oenophile, liberalism, which basically includes all institutions of higher learning, equalls bogus(ness?) and/or clostet homosexual. I really wish you would LISTEN and LEARN!
Please posts some more sensible links. i.e. Conservative anti-homosexual sites. Thank you.
liberalism, which basically includes all institutions of higher learning, equalls bogus(ness? and/or clostet homosexual. I really wish you would LISTEN and LEARN!
I will not stoop to the your level of political discourse in your last post and insult your intelligence as you have mine. In fact,I even complimented you for your insight into public accomodation in an earlier post.
But take a moment and read what you have written. You have focused your scorn on allinstitutions of higher learning and all liberalism. Moreover, you have suggested that I post from conservative and antigay sites because they unlike the sites that I referenced are more sensible.
Please be reminded that the those movements that have moved our society forward have been mostly founded onliberalideals. This begins with the very foundations of our society. If it were up to the conservatives (Tories) who were in the majority, there would have never been an American Revolution. It was liberals like Sam Adams,Patrick Henry, Revere and Jefferson that lit the spark that ignited the torch of liberty. Moreover, other liberal accomplishments include the abolition of slavery, the prohibition on child labor, a mandated healthy food industry, the forty hour work week, the weekend, the civil rights movement, one man one vote, the right of every accused to counsel and many others. Which of these accomplishments would you like to forfeit now? Each and everyone of them was opposed by conservatives at the time.
Liberals will always be in the minority but thankfully their courage informed by their ideals of compassion and equality move them to action for the better of all of us.
Standing in the spotlight gazing skyward with arms outstretched and The Mormon Tabernacle Choir softly singing "Battle Hymn of the Republic in the background, Oeno passionately intones...
quote:
Liberals will always be in the minority but thankfully their courage informed by their ideals of compassion and equality move them to action for the better of all of us.
After drying his eye, blowing his nose and catching his breath, Ron G. sobers up and retorts...
What kind of liberals are you talking about? The founders were CLASSIC liberals which is a far cry from contemporary liberals.
CLASSIC liberalism seeks a society with minimal government and little regulation for self governing, self regulating individuals. The most precious commodity being private property and the most sacred private property being the conscience of the individual that their self interest is predicated on each individuals right and ability to live his life well without social pressure or coersion, dependent on none but himself or a supreme being.
Contemporary liberalism is maximum government coersion to force individuals into a collective state where each can only live his life in dependence on the state for sustenance and protection. In other words, feudalism.
Contemorary Conservatism (Neocon) is essentially the same as contemporary liberalism, but fulfills the Hegelian dialectic by offering opposition to contemporary liberal causes. Still, it causes dependency or feudalism.
Serfdom isn't compassionate. Liberty is compassionate.
Let's use homosexual marriage as an example.
Contemporary Liberal--Enact legislation (state coersion) forcing the state to issue licenses to homosexual couples and enact legislation forcing the recognition.
Neocon--Enact legislation denying the state the right to issue marriage licenses and outlawing recognition.
Classic liberalism--Questions why the state is issuing licenses in the first place and encourages the individuals to do what they will, as long as it doesn't infringe on the free choices of another. Let whoever wants to, recognize it and whoever doesn't want to, not recognize it.
Classic Conservatism should do about the same thing.
Classic Conservatism would be more interested in economic issues, so I'm kind of omitting it as this is more about social issues.
Classic liberalism looks at the natural state of things i.e. anarchy, and recognizes that in a state of total anarchy men and women will still pair up, live monogamously and make children while homosexuls will pair up and live monogamously. In a state of total anarchy, people will continue to live according to the dictates of their conscience and will have private property.
Contemporary liberals and neocons seem to want to dictate conscience and regulate or eliminate private property.
People like that have no courage or they wouldn't be frightened of others rights, they have no compassion or they'd be willing to let others live their lives as they see fit and certainly no ideals except to get what they can legislate out of the pockets of others.
This is why homosexuals should quit politicizing Scouts and trying to force their way with them and create their own organization (call it Boy Sprouts, if you will) and we can all be happy in the knowledge that we all have the liberty to do it as we see fit.
OR just call them Heterosexual Boy Scouts of America. Or Stud Scouts of America. Or to hell with this America thing, let them be Boy Scouts of Virginia, or Boy Scouts of Kansas.
I think your recollection of history has left out a few key individuals. Hamilton and Madison for example. Two nationalists that were instramental in keeping this country affloat. Without Hamilton, this may not have been the United States of America for very long if ever. He was very partial to that "United" part. He, as a lawyer, was also a major player in forming the laws that help define our freedom of press and assembly.
It was kind of a great arguement of chance that happened to comprimise on a dynamic system that is still strong today.
That United part of the USA is a great thing. Let the states do what they please and we would be at least two seperate countries today. Let the states do what they want and we would have slavery much longer than we did. Who knows we may have still had it today. Let the states do as they please, as we did with western territory states and you end up with "Bloody Kansas". That didn't work out to well for quite some time there for them and Missori until "Big Brother" stepped in.
But that is not what this thread is about. It is about the differnce between private groups (another group Hamilton fiercly faught for) and public, tax financed institutions and property. No one has said here that BSA should not be allowed to do what they have done. The opposite is true. The court as ruled this way. Most people are still OK with that.
"What is wrong with the BSA?" was the question. Well morally, IMO, is the discrimination factor. Legally nothing that I know of. Legally though, they should not be allowed to uses a gay man or woman's tax dollars to house their functions when they discriminate against them. I don't know why that is so hard to accept. It doesn't make sense on multiple levels.
Sorry for the confusion. It was a joke. At least it was to those of us that thought it was funny. To others it was satcastic ridicule. I guess it depends on how you look at it.
I fully aware what classical liberalism (in fact I posted the explanation in another thread) which is an ideal born of the age of enlightenment by such thinkers as Locke, Montesquieu et. al. and it is neither conservative nor is it liberal. In contemporary terms it is libertarian which indeed argues for limited self government in BOTH the public and PRIVATE sphere (like keeping the government out of our bedroom (whom we wish to take as a marriage partner) and what we choose to do with our bodies, which are a stands that most conservatives are rue to take.)
Conservatives give lipservice to freedom but act differently. For example, the Bill of Rights which are ideals that both liberals and libertarians espouse is currently under attack by the Patriot Act which under the guise of national security is attempting to roll back many of these freedoms that have been hard won. Did you know that the Republican Congress is now attempting to expand the Patriot Act to the point of requiring bookstores, libraries to report the books that you choose to read without a court order?
Benjamin Franklin once remarked " a people who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
Well morally, IMO, is the discrimination factor...
Then you must agree that the NAACP, Southern Poverty Law Center, the ACLU, NPR, democrats, republicans, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers etc etc. etc etc etc are all morally wrong.
quote:
Legally though, they should not be allowed to uses a gay man or woman's tax dollars to house their functions when they discriminate against them.
By that logic, tax dollars shouldn't be used to execute people, invade faraway places, provide abortions, stop abortions, support art, support dependent children, house politicians, support politicians, purchase ammunition to shoot politicians, defend the indigent in court, go to the moon, study diseases, assist Israel in killing Palestinians, return from the moon etc. etc. etc.
I'll bet even YOU discriminate against somebody somewhere.
Interesting that there was no out cry about what that cook did, nor was there any outcry when tax dollars were spent for the gay/lesbian high school club while the nondenominational Christian kids had to leave campus to meet.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
5
6
6
7
Popular Days
Jun 7
15
Jun 12
8
Jun 14
7
Jun 8
7
Top Posters In This Topic
oenophile 5 posts
Ron G. 6 posts
Trefor Heywood 6 posts
lindyhopper 7 posts
Popular Days
Jun 7 2005
15 posts
Jun 12 2005
8 posts
Jun 14 2005
7 posts
Jun 8 2005
7 posts
Raf
True. But why?
Because for so long, if you were black, Asian or Latina, you didn't have a serious chance of being named Miss America. You got locked out, usually at the earliest levels. How long was Miss America around before they made room for a brown woman?
I'm not a fan of beauty pageants, so I'm the wrong one to speak on this subject, but now that non-white contestants have a decent shot at winning, I would have no problem dismantling all the Miss Color Pageants across the country.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Um, there are competing organizations. Pagans have Spiral Scouts
http://www.spiralscouts.org/metadot/index.pl,
And isn't there a conservative Christian scouting group?
I remember buying one of my kids an expensive khaki shirt and badges when they were involved in a church group several years ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
The link didn't work but was able to find the site by cutting and pasting only as far as the .org.
I don't think that it has links with the world scouting movement so it can't really offer the alternative to BSA.
I love the "international" bit - have a few people dotted in two adjacent countries and hey you are international!
:)--> (TWI is another example lol).
In mid Wales there is a tiny landing strip that can take two seater aircraft - it quite legitimately claims international status as occasionally a plane might fly from there into England!
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Absolutely, sexuality shouldn't be an issue. How are you or anyone else secure in knowing the person that you have let your kid go and spend a weekend in the woods with will not harm him in some way?
I would assume the answer is that you know that person to a degree that you are comfortable with them. I know I wouldn't let it happen anyother way. So if there were a gay scout leader or a gay scout I would imagine that if you spent a little time with these people you get to know them and hopefully ultimately rule that they are harmless. If not, don't let your kid go on an outing with them.
On the other hand, if you just plainly think that gay people are by nature perverts, molesters, and/or pedophile rapists, well then that is just bigotry and ignorance. So if an organisation wants to uphold those standards then that is thier perogative, but again, don't then whine that everyone dosn't just love you.
When I was a scout this wasn't an issue. Most of the time kids this age aren't thinking about sex or are too unsureabout it to do or say much about it. Today may be a little differnt.
And Raf, I don't think that anyone is trying to force the BSA to be something they aren't, and I think there are some alternatives out there but nothing that is very big yet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Lindy wrote:
Still, it is a PUBLIC school, paid for by nondiscriminatory tax dollars. Therefore they can't or shouldn't allow a group that does discriminate use thier public facilities. There is nothing that should be upsetting about this.
Thank you, Lindy. It seems that this very simple concept is so hard for so many otherwise intelligentpeople to get.
If you wish to have a private organization like the BSA which chooses to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference or a private country club that discriminates against blacks or Jews-thats fine. Go ahead and indulge your prejudices. But don't expect to be accomodated by public facilities which are supported in part by my tax dollars.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wingnut
Prime target group, young males in puberty, acceptance issue my @$$
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Here is another failure to understand that there is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia.
http://www.geocities.com/ericw_970/myths.html
http://www.fortunecity.com/village/birdcag...homovspedo.html
http://www.joekort.com/articles50.htm
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html...olestation.html
The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
oenophile:
How does your claim explain the fact many of the men who sexualy abuse are married with children of their own?
some molest girls , yes, yet a great deal of the success of this crime is due to its secret nature of lust and the illusion of appearing to live within normal society boundaries.
Ophrah states this all the time how a child molester is your uncle your neighbor your coach your dr. and the pillar of the commuity.
the high profiles cases such as the DR.'s of very sick children which are vey common in these parts (college town)have All had children and families of their own in the community and would live far above suspect.
I do not think homosexuals are child molesters neccesarily, I think child molesters can protray any life style they would chose to set as an image as all con men must. It would be much less under the microscope to NOT be openly "gay" in such a culture as ours, if you desire to molest children and get away without suspicsion of some sort.
the very nature of this crime demands one to be cunning and full of lies and deceit as a lifestyle to continue, undecteded,it would seem to me, a person willing to take on the role of being a homosexual openly in society would be above such and more comfortable in the acceptance of what he/she choses sexualy.
It is well documented that over 50% of child molester are TEENS, and many younger when they begin their practices of abuse.
In the boy scouts we have a group of boys often ranging in ages from preeteen or younger to grown adults thisis a PRIME time for molesters to begin the abuse!! Given the loyalty and man love that is instilled within the ranks of such groups, I think itwould be indeed difficult for a victim to say what may be happening right under the noses of innocent leaders and loving parents. No one wants to accuse another child of this type of behaviour much less another child that is seeking to please and excell within the group.
By the time a molester is grown up and of legal age to have sex the ritual of abuse is so well practiced and shamed into his abuse they rarely get caught. child molesters are not grown men getting creepy one day they are true con men able to avoid being accused with years of practice and lies, they are driven by a desire that forces them to live with society norms, with a passion that is out of control. MOST do not get caught because they appear as normal and often times very helpful and loving of children.
homosexuals who come out are ready and willing to live within the critical mass of a minority that has discrimination laws in place to protect them . It has always been two very different groups to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
Oenophile...
All your links are simply bogus. They are all by and for homosexuals trying to promote their agenda. The rhetoric is plainly "consensus facilitation 101" using such words as "myth" and phrases like "we all agree" etc. to discredit the opposing viewpoint.
You can see the same rhetoric in white supremicist literature to demonize blacks and the same rhetoric in anti gun literature to disguise their lies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wingnut
Did I mention pedophiles? Nope.
But parents have a right to protect their children from certain erroneous “teachings” as its completely alright and natural for boys to “like” each other in “that” way. But a homo cook at a Boy Scout camp took it upon himself to spread the word to over 200 Scouts. Fortunately the Scouts had a good enough relationship with their leaders to inform them of this and the man was removed immediately.
He never touched one, he believed he was right; so right he violated those boys without touching them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Ron G.
U.C. Davis is bogus????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
I lived in Davis CA for a number of years during the clinton times.
I remember Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Judy Pertanski, the pervert weddings, the politically correct nonsense, "Davis, the First non nuclear city" etc etc etc.
Davis is the leftist hate and hypocrisy capitol of the northern hemisphere....southern, too.
Actually, I was considerably more moderate and "democrat" until I lived in Davis and got a huge dose of leftist reality.
ESPECIALLY U.C. Davis!!!
ACK, PTUI
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Get it through you thick head, Oenophile, liberalism, which basically includes all institutions of higher learning, equalls bogus(ness?) and/or clostet homosexual. I really wish you would LISTEN and LEARN!
Please posts some more sensible links. i.e. Conservative anti-homosexual sites. Thank you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Thanks for the reminder Lindy
whens the book burning?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Well Ron G. - I am sure the opposite happens also when somebody moves into an area surrounded by rightist fantasy.
Such as stating that gay weddings are "pervert".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Lindy,
I will not stoop to the your level of political discourse in your last post and insult your intelligence as you have mine. In fact,I even complimented you for your insight into public accomodation in an earlier post.
But take a moment and read what you have written. You have focused your scorn on allinstitutions of higher learning and all liberalism. Moreover, you have suggested that I post from conservative and antigay sites because they unlike the sites that I referenced are more sensible.
Please be reminded that the those movements that have moved our society forward have been mostly founded onliberalideals. This begins with the very foundations of our society. If it were up to the conservatives (Tories) who were in the majority, there would have never been an American Revolution. It was liberals like Sam Adams,Patrick Henry, Revere and Jefferson that lit the spark that ignited the torch of liberty. Moreover, other liberal accomplishments include the abolition of slavery, the prohibition on child labor, a mandated healthy food industry, the forty hour work week, the weekend, the civil rights movement, one man one vote, the right of every accused to counsel and many others. Which of these accomplishments would you like to forfeit now? Each and everyone of them was opposed by conservatives at the time.
Liberals will always be in the minority but thankfully their courage informed by their ideals of compassion and equality move them to action for the better of all of us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Lindy didn't mean what he wrote, oenphile. He was sarcastically ridiculing people who actually believe those sorts of things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
Standing in the spotlight gazing skyward with arms outstretched and The Mormon Tabernacle Choir softly singing "Battle Hymn of the Republic in the background, Oeno passionately intones...
After drying his eye, blowing his nose and catching his breath, Ron G. sobers up and retorts...
What kind of liberals are you talking about? The founders were CLASSIC liberals which is a far cry from contemporary liberals.
CLASSIC liberalism seeks a society with minimal government and little regulation for self governing, self regulating individuals. The most precious commodity being private property and the most sacred private property being the conscience of the individual that their self interest is predicated on each individuals right and ability to live his life well without social pressure or coersion, dependent on none but himself or a supreme being.
Contemporary liberalism is maximum government coersion to force individuals into a collective state where each can only live his life in dependence on the state for sustenance and protection. In other words, feudalism.
Contemorary Conservatism (Neocon) is essentially the same as contemporary liberalism, but fulfills the Hegelian dialectic by offering opposition to contemporary liberal causes. Still, it causes dependency or feudalism.
Serfdom isn't compassionate. Liberty is compassionate.
Let's use homosexual marriage as an example.
Contemporary Liberal--Enact legislation (state coersion) forcing the state to issue licenses to homosexual couples and enact legislation forcing the recognition.
Neocon--Enact legislation denying the state the right to issue marriage licenses and outlawing recognition.
Classic liberalism--Questions why the state is issuing licenses in the first place and encourages the individuals to do what they will, as long as it doesn't infringe on the free choices of another. Let whoever wants to, recognize it and whoever doesn't want to, not recognize it.
Classic Conservatism should do about the same thing.
Classic Conservatism would be more interested in economic issues, so I'm kind of omitting it as this is more about social issues.
Classic liberalism looks at the natural state of things i.e. anarchy, and recognizes that in a state of total anarchy men and women will still pair up, live monogamously and make children while homosexuls will pair up and live monogamously. In a state of total anarchy, people will continue to live according to the dictates of their conscience and will have private property.
Contemporary liberals and neocons seem to want to dictate conscience and regulate or eliminate private property.
People like that have no courage or they wouldn't be frightened of others rights, they have no compassion or they'd be willing to let others live their lives as they see fit and certainly no ideals except to get what they can legislate out of the pockets of others.
This is why homosexuals should quit politicizing Scouts and trying to force their way with them and create their own organization (call it Boy Sprouts, if you will) and we can all be happy in the knowledge that we all have the liberty to do it as we see fit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
OR just call them Heterosexual Boy Scouts of America. Or Stud Scouts of America. Or to hell with this America thing, let them be Boy Scouts of Virginia, or Boy Scouts of Kansas.
I think your recollection of history has left out a few key individuals. Hamilton and Madison for example. Two nationalists that were instramental in keeping this country affloat. Without Hamilton, this may not have been the United States of America for very long if ever. He was very partial to that "United" part. He, as a lawyer, was also a major player in forming the laws that help define our freedom of press and assembly.
It was kind of a great arguement of chance that happened to comprimise on a dynamic system that is still strong today.
That United part of the USA is a great thing. Let the states do what they please and we would be at least two seperate countries today. Let the states do what they want and we would have slavery much longer than we did. Who knows we may have still had it today. Let the states do as they please, as we did with western territory states and you end up with "Bloody Kansas". That didn't work out to well for quite some time there for them and Missori until "Big Brother" stepped in.
But that is not what this thread is about. It is about the differnce between private groups (another group Hamilton fiercly faught for) and public, tax financed institutions and property. No one has said here that BSA should not be allowed to do what they have done. The opposite is true. The court as ruled this way. Most people are still OK with that.
"What is wrong with the BSA?" was the question. Well morally, IMO, is the discrimination factor. Legally nothing that I know of. Legally though, they should not be allowed to uses a gay man or woman's tax dollars to house their functions when they discriminate against them. I don't know why that is so hard to accept. It doesn't make sense on multiple levels.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Oene,
Sorry for the confusion. It was a joke. At least it was to those of us that thought it was funny. To others it was satcastic ridicule. I guess it depends on how you look at it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Ron,
I fully aware what classical liberalism (in fact I posted the explanation in another thread) which is an ideal born of the age of enlightenment by such thinkers as Locke, Montesquieu et. al. and it is neither conservative nor is it liberal. In contemporary terms it is libertarian which indeed argues for limited self government in BOTH the public and PRIVATE sphere (like keeping the government out of our bedroom (whom we wish to take as a marriage partner) and what we choose to do with our bodies, which are a stands that most conservatives are rue to take.)
Conservatives give lipservice to freedom but act differently. For example, the Bill of Rights which are ideals that both liberals and libertarians espouse is currently under attack by the Patriot Act which under the guise of national security is attempting to roll back many of these freedoms that have been hard won. Did you know that the Republican Congress is now attempting to expand the Patriot Act to the point of requiring bookstores, libraries to report the books that you choose to read without a court order?
Benjamin Franklin once remarked " a people who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
And Ben Franklin would be right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
Then you must agree that the NAACP, Southern Poverty Law Center, the ACLU, NPR, democrats, republicans, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers etc etc. etc etc etc are all morally wrong.
By that logic, tax dollars shouldn't be used to execute people, invade faraway places, provide abortions, stop abortions, support art, support dependent children, house politicians, support politicians, purchase ammunition to shoot politicians, defend the indigent in court, go to the moon, study diseases, assist Israel in killing Palestinians, return from the moon etc. etc. etc.
I'll bet even YOU discriminate against somebody somewhere.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wingnut
Interesting that there was no out cry about what that cook did, nor was there any outcry when tax dollars were spent for the gay/lesbian high school club while the nondenominational Christian kids had to leave campus to meet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.