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.
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahThe 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."============"To help other people at all times" --
includes gay scouts, at all times.Help them doens't mean label,
castigate, and discriminate against them."morally straight"
is not solely defined as being only sexual Mike, and you know it. You are
using moral relativism to suit your agenda, and you said you were against
that.I know more Bankers and Lawyers who are morally "crooked"
than Boy Scouts, and most are heterosexual.Gay Mormons can
particpate in all LDS Church activities, as much as you disagree and judge so
harshly against them.FYI - it took 50 years and the civil rights
movement in America before black boys and black leaders could fully participate
in the Boy Scouts of America.
On the surface this seems like afair question but what is the difference between
someone demanding they change and someone demanding that they not change their
beliefs? either way you are trying to force them to adhere to your views instead
of someone else's.
"what is the difference between someone demanding they change and someone
demanding that they not change their beliefs?"No one is asking
anyone to change their beliefs. (or not change their beliefs)Heck, I
am pretty sure that in Utah, there will be NO CHANGE whatsoever in the LDS
troops.Yet Utah, will probably make the most noise about it.To
me, what a great opportunity to teach a scouting lesson about acceptance and
about how to treat people that are different from us.That, or just
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahThe Scout Oath:...To
keep myself physically strong,mentally awake, and morally
straight."========I keep thinking over and over
again of your Scout Oath quote - and your mis-interpretation of
"morally straight" as being subject only to sexual orientation.I've seen some pretty fat Boy Scouts (and Leaders) there Mike, are
you saying the Boy Scouts should kick out the fat kids and fat leaders too?Your judgements on other people is simply staggering.It's not
very Scout like, or Christ-like.
If the American concept of personal freedom is in conflict with your religious
views, take your church and... The only thing is that, if everyone
did that you might be left standing alone. For the most part the
Boy Scouts are different things to different people. To the sponsoring
organization, usually a church, the purpose is to impress a specific code of
behavior consistent with the sponsoring organization. To the group leaders it
is a job to be done. To the boys themselves, it is fun, fun learning
experiences, fun games to play, fun of participation outside the family. And
the drudgery is not noticeable. We have allowed churches and others
to do this because it is good for the boys. And no matter what the original
purpose was, it is still a valuable asset that helps conditioning boys to live
in our world. All boys, especially American boys and those living
in America, should have the right to the benefits of participation in the Boy
Scouts. Just leave sex out of it.
You obviously need some re-education liberal style. Liberals are all about
freedom to choose as long as what you choose meets their approval.
As Groucho Marx would quip after reading the title, "I would not want to
belong to any club that would have me as a member."
@patriotcare to answer spring streets question. I seem to remember you
along with being among the people on past threads on this subject that stated
you would withdraw your support if the boy scouts made the change.
@ patriotLiberals don't have monopoly on conformity, you know.
Is this really what is best for the kids? Because it seems like certain adults
have completely forgotten abou5 the kids.Or is this just another
lame attempt by the radical right to try and score points by hurting kids in
order to salvage what has been a disasterous political football season?Please repubs, consider the children. Put politics aside.
It's not fair. Life just isn't fair. I don't care who gets the
biggest piece of cake at the party. I could of not been invited. Don' take
things to heart or personally. Sure I'm going to feel bad to be turn down
for some thing Hay I'm O K. I can respect that.I would rather not been
invited than shouldn't of been.
re:TolstoyCorrect! Just because an organization or an individual has
the freedom to choose doesn't mean they avoid the consequences of their
choices. Choices all have consequences. BSA can choose to have gay scout masters
.. no one is stopping them from making that choice ... but they will then have
to live with the results of their choice. I don't have to like their choice
and neither do you. Liberals don't want to allow choice unless it fits with
their agenda. The people of the US by a slim majority chose Obama for a second
term but with that choice comes the nasty consequences of higher unemployment
re:Open Minded MormonForcing something to happen ONLY occurs when
the majority vote and not from some vocal minority forcing their twisted views
by threats and law suits as liberals always seem to do. Liberals are all for the
majority rule unless it doesn't square with their ideology and at that
point they resort to all sorts of blackmail, threats, boycotts, etc.....Of
course liberalism is akin to hypocrisy... always has and always will.
@patriothow is what the "liberals" doing any more trying to force
others then what you are doing, please give me a specific example of how they
are trying to take away rights in a way that you are not.
@patriot Short list of current companies being boycotted by
conservatives.AccuQuote Life Insurance, Allstate Insurance, AOL, Aquarium
of the Pacific, Bare Escentuals, Bethesda Sedation Dentistry, Bonobos, Capital
One, Carbonite, Cascades Dental, Citrix, Consolidated Credit Counseling
Services, Constant Contact, Cunningham Security, Freedom Debt Relief, Geico,
Girl Scouts, Goodwill Industries, Hadeed Carpet, JCPenney, Legal Zoom, Matrix
Direct, Netflix, Norway Savings Bank, Philadelphia Orchestra, PolyCom, Portland
Ovations, ProFlowers, Quicken Loans, Regal Assets, Reputation Rhino, RSVP
Discount Beverage, Sears, Sensa, Service Magic, Sleep Train, Sleep Number, St.
Vincent’s Medical Center, Tax Resolution, Thompson Creek Windows and
Vitacost.Recent conservative Hollywood and TV boycottsEscape
From Planet Earth - George Lopez,
Warm Bodies - John Malkovich,
Effects - Catherine Zeta Jones,
Movie 43 - Elizabeth Banks,
Gangster Squad - Sean Penn, Josh Brolin,
Unchained - Jamie Foxx,
Les Miserables - Anne Hathaway,
Guidance - Bette Midler
Promised Land - Matt Damon,
3D – Lionsgate,
The Impossible - Naomi Watts,
Winfrey Network- O. Winfrey ,
HBO - Real Time with Bill Maher
@patriotShort list of recent conservative lawsuits The Maine
Heritage Policy Center sued claiming the MMA had violated the center's
free-speech rights by opposing tax campaigns Teresa R. Wagner sued the
Univeristy of Iowa law school claiming she was not hired because she was a
republican.The conservative student publication that sued claiming that
their free speech and been violated by Oregon State University. A
conservative group named The Alliance Defending Freedom sued Minnisota to block
funding of abortions. Texas Aggie Conservatives, a recognized student
organization, filed a lawsuit against University President R. Bowen Loftin and
several other Texas A&M University staff members. TAC claims its 1st and
14th Amendment rights were violated when it was denied funding based on its
religious and political affiliations.Conservative policy grouop the
Competitive Enterprise Institute filed suit against the government claiming the
Dodd Frank Act was unconstitutional. Abigail Fisher is suing the
University of Texas over affirmative action in college admissions.Over the
past 20 years conservative Edward Blum has similarly launched at least a dozen
lawsuits attacking race-based protections.
@patriot Lets talk protest, lets talk about,Conservative protest
calling for AT and T’s CEO Randal Stehphansen to resign due to his support
of gays in scouting. Conservatives protesting Lady Gaga’s bus due to
her support for gay rights. JC Penny’s for using Ellen (openly gay)
as a spokes personThe Conservative organization American Family
associations protest of an anti-bulling day because the people sponsoring the
day wanted to extend anti bullying to include bullying against gay children and
the children of gay parents.American Family Associations protest against
Arlington National Cemetery’s recognizing gay spouses. Charlotte NC
conservatives protested against “undeclared wars” Petitions
to secede from the union following the presidential electionOngoing
protest of abortion clinics across the country. Shall we go on?
patriotCedar Hills, UTre:Open Minded MormonForcing
something to happen ONLY occurs when the majority vote and not from some vocal
minority forcing their twisted views by threats and law suits as liberals always
seem to do. Liberals are all for the majority rule unless it doesn't square
with their ideology and at that point they resort to all sorts of blackmail,
threats, boycotts, etc.....Of course liberalism is akin to hypocrisy... always
has and always will.9:41 a.m. Feb. 20, 2013===========OK, patriot, I'll play....55% of Americans say
drop the Boy Scout gay ban, a much smaller and vocal 33% minority say keep
it.85% of Americans support Immigration reform, 60% want more gun
control, 89% of Americans support contraception,51% support
legalizing marijuana, …and 59% are Pro-Choice, Oh yes,
and speaking of hypocrisy and majorities:Pres. Obama still won 62%, vs.
@Tolstoy"how is what the "liberals" doing any more trying to
force others then what you are doing, please give me a specific example of how
they are trying to take away rights in a way that you are not."Wow: what a vapid argument. No one is stopping you from creating an
organization that meets YOUR membership requirements - You are advocating
stopping an organization that wants to maintain theirs. (Doesn’t matter
whether you approve of them or not - they may not like yours either) The Supreme
Court has held that the freedom of association is an essential part of the
Freedom of Speech. You don’t have to approve. I think the HRC is a hate
group – so I don’t join – I don’t try to force them to
alter their membership requirements to accommodate me.As usual:
Myopic leftists demands tolerance and choice while being blatantly intolerant of
any divergent choice. It’s your way or no way. You are the perpetrator
here - not the victim