Published: Tuesday, Feb. 19 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
So Mr. May is saying that, for example, if an organization promotes racial
discrimination and segregation, no attempts should be made to make it a more
equitable and honorable organization to fit people's personal belifs about
And if gay rights groups decide to create their own version of the Scouts they
should be allowed to meet in public buildings and have their annual Jamboree on
public lands for free. Deal?
"why would I deem it necessary to try to force them to adopt my personal
preferences?"That is a good question indeed. But, a strawman
argument.However, when talking about the Boy Scouts, it looks to me
like no one is "forcing" anyone.Each Troop has the OPTION
but not the mandate. It would appear that YOU are more intent on forcing others
than they are.Allowing the option certainly seems more reasonable
than mandating.I find it curious that the people that are the
loudest on this issue will be affected the least (and probably not affected at
KJB1: And exactly what is stopping them from doing that right now?If
gays want to start their own organization that only allows other gays to join,
they are perfectly able to to that. Nothing prevents them from doing it.
I'm sure they would be granted access to public facilities just like every
other group as long as they conducted themselves in a civil manner while using
So, a young boy of scouting age wants to participate in the same group his
friends participates in. He's celibate, plays sports, loves camping, but
because he's gay he isn't allowed to participate with his friends -
most of whom probably already know he's gay.Instead, he has to
go find some group just for gays so that he can do what his friends do, but do
it without having his friends there?Bigotry is a very sad way to
live a life Mr. May.
JoeCapitalist2:And what if that group specifically discriminated
against straight and/or religious kids and forbid them from joining? Should
they still be allowed to use public facilities for free?
Those who demand tolerance rarely reciprocate. The attacks on people and
organizations of faith will increase.
@SalThose already enjoying rights and priviliges that others are
being denied have no real right to claim intolerance from the other side.The Mormons just wanted some tolerance in Missouri, and all the
residents of Missouri were doing was to demand the Mormons be tolerant of their
right to not accept them.Kind of see how the the group with the
rights cannot claim they are being persecuted as well?
@KJB1"And what if that group specifically discriminated against
straight and/or religious kids and forbid them from joining? Should they still
be allowed to use public facilities for free?"---------Yes of course. @Darrel"The Mormons just wanted some
tolerance in Missouri, and all the residents of Missouri were doing was to
demand the Mormons be tolerant of their right to not accept them."--------Ridiculous comparison. We are talking about a boy scout
organization. Not the right to private property or life.
Darrell,No, your knowledge of history is sadly deficient. The citizens of
Missouri had a Mormon extermination order delivered to them. It was not an issue
of "tolerance" or their right not to accept Mormons.
@Owl,The Missourians were afraid of Mormons changing their way of
life. As a rule they were opposed to slavery, and Missouri was a slave state.
With the Mormons having the most populated county in the State, they were
afraid.I am simply drawing a parrallel. For much of their early
history, the LDS church was simply not welcome were they went because they were
different. To claim that gays have to be tolerant of your right
opinion is one thing. No one is forcing you accept them, or like them.
However, what they are asking for is equal treatment under the law, and the
claim they are being tolerant of your opinion they shouldn't have those
rights is...well...absurd. The group that has the rights another wants has no
moral ground to claim intolerance. Just as it would have been absurd for the
Missourians to claim the Mormons were not tolerant of their views to hate them,
it is equally absurd for us.
@RAnch,How would most of the young boys already know a kid was gay?
When I was in scouting I never once told another young boy I had chosen to be a
heterosexual. Are you suggesting the gay boy scouts would make it obvious they
are gay, by the way they act? I agree with you such is the case. Usually the
liberals try and argue that point though. Funny you now agree.I'm glad the boy scouts is putting scout safety #1.I would
not wany my nieces camping together in tents with adolescent boys. Similarly, we should protect the hetersexual boys just as we protect young
girls by not having them share tents with straigth boys. The girls have their
own scouts.The gays should do the same
Where have we heard this type of dialog before? Ahhhhh yes, the Civil Rights
Movement. People like this letter writer who supported the "Separate"
but "Equal" monstrosity in the deep south. Don't you dare mix
colored folks with our white schools. If colored folks want to have education,
they can create their own schools and organizations!Hateful,
bigoted, and intolerant attitudes pervade even in this great enlightened period.
Hey Furry1993 he wasn't talking about race.
To "Furry1993" would you want to force the KKK to accept gays, Jews, and
blacks? Why do you want to create further resentment by mandating that people
no longer have the freedom of association.To "RanchHand"
think of it this way. If you had a handicap child with no legs, would you want
them to compete on the track team with the other kids that have legs?It isn't that the scouts prohibit gays because they hate them. It is a
matter of protection for all of the kids involved. Unfortunately it means that
some will have hurt feelings because of their gendera attraction.To
"The Real Maverick" actually, this is quite different. This is not a
matter of civil rights and "Separate but equal" type laws. This is
purely about protection.
If the guiding principles, rules or philosophies of an organization or club
don't align with my personal beliefs, why would I deem it necessary to try
to force them to adopt my personal preferences?Because this is
America - we a not the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazis, or a Cult.That's
why. ======= @DarrelEagle Mountain, UT@Owl,The Missourians were afraid of Mormons changing their way of
life. -------Why do Conservatives keep trying to
associate the Missouri mobs with Liberals, and the Mormons as the Conservatives?
--When it was exactly 180 degrees OPPOSITE?.The Mormons
were anti-Slavery, Pro-Women's Rights, Promoted Universal
Wealthfare, a re-distriibtution of Wealth, Unorthodox marriages, and Pro-Immigration stance, to name just a few of their liberal views...
But you did get the fact that the Missouri mobs were afraid of
change, maintaining the status quo, and being anti-Progressive.FYI - that
would be the very definition of "Conservative".
I find it interesting that on another story the following comment appeared:Open Minded MormonEverett, 00If you don't
like it - don't go.
The Scout Oath:"On my honor I will do my bestTo do my duty
to God and my countryand to obey the Scout Law;To help other people
at all times;To keep myself physically strong,mentally awake, and
morally straight."Anyone who wants to "change" things
that violates the Scout Oath has his own interests in mind, not the interests of
the boys who count on leaders to live and emulate the oath that they all take
every week in their troop meeting.Redefining "morally
straight" is not an option when the lives of our boys are at stake.
@Open Minded MormonI never associated one as a liberal, or the other
as Conservative. If I conveyed that message somehow, let me apologize, for such
was not my intent. For what it's worth I agree with you. The Mormons in
the 1800 were way ahead of their time politically. On a personal
note, I tend to agree with the vast majority of your posts. I try avoid
labeling people as "Liberal", "Conservative", "Red",
"Blue", etc... because no one person fits the cookie cutter definition
of any label. I tend to agree with the "liberal" point of view more
often than not (a lot more often in fact).I simply try to live my
life the best I can, and allow others the same. I think most people try to do
so, but how to go about doing it is where we most often disagree.
To "Open Minded Mormon" you are not exactly right.The early
Mormons were not anti-slavery. There were some early Saints that owned slaves,
and had rules for how the slaves were to be treated.They did not
promote "Universal Wealthfare". They did not promote tax breaks to the
middle and upperclass. They promoted equality.Polygamy was not
"unorthodox" either. The practice was common among European trappers,
the native americans, and muslims. Throughout history it has been a common
practice. Uncommon yes, unorthodox, not really.There was not a
redistribution of wealth. There was a charitable giving of your excess, and you
still owned your property.The things that you claim as belonging to
"liberal" views today would be considered conservative views. You claim
them, but the modern liberals do not believe in them nor do they implement them.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments