Do Boy Scouts and Liberals Mix?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Please. Assuming you are the person to whom I was responding, you continued this irrational belief that you were responding to only one person, assumed that I was that person, and simultaneously came at me rather aggressively while failing even to read my statements. "Crazy" isn't an ad hominem attack - I wasn't suggesting that you are literally crazy, but that you are being crazy in this thread.

WTF?

I think the PP was saying something akin to, "I didn't say you are fat. I said you look fat today."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:disagreeing with BSA over something as minor as this just is not an important enough of an issue for me to deny my child the otherwise great benefits he gets from the BSA.

You cannot possibly think that tolerance, civil rights, and respect for others is minor.

I don't think gay issues are a civil rights issue. Sorry, that is my opinion. If the BSA discriminated against minorities or were not accepting to the disabled or encouraged bullying or anything of that nature I would be outraged. But whether or not they allow gay scoutmasters is not something I would ever concern myself with or lose any sleep over. I tend to think of sexuality as a private matter regardless.

If you truly believed it was a private matter, wouldn't it follow that BSA shouldn't discriminate on that basis? Or is it only a private matter when asserted by a GLBT person and a public matter when asserted by anyone else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:disagreeing with BSA over something as minor as this just is not an important enough of an issue for me to deny my child the otherwise great benefits he gets from the BSA.

You cannot possibly think that tolerance, civil rights, and respect for others is minor.

I don't think gay issues are a civil rights issue. Sorry, that is my opinion. If the BSA discriminated against minorities or were not accepting to the disabled or encouraged bullying or anything of that nature I would be outraged. But whether or not they allow gay scoutmasters is not something I would ever concern myself with or lose any sleep over. I tend to think of sexuality as a private matter regardless.

If you truly believed it was a private matter, wouldn't it follow that BSA shouldn't discriminate on that basis? Or is it only a private matter when asserted by a GLBT person and a public matter when asserted by anyone else?

DINGDINGDING! People who hold this position are advocating that LGBTQ folks keep their sex lives private because it gives them the ickies. Everyone else is free to flaunt it. It's the same as people who insist that gay co-workers are "shoving their lifestyle in everyone's face" if they have a picture of their partner on their desk yet conveniently ignore or are totally okay with all the heterosexual face-shoving that goes on with all the straight partners' photos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread needs to die. Unfortunately, it's a few ardent gay rights supporters who are making it so ugly. I say "unfortunately" because we're all for gay BS troop leaders. But it's reached the point of no return, IMHO.

I just came to this thread, and I disagree with your assessment. There are people who feel strongly enough about this issue to post. I'm not sure how these "ardent gay rights supporters"are making it ugly.

Personally: I struggle with this issue. My father is a scoutmaster, and has been involved since the 50s, My brother is an eagle scout, and it has had such a great impact on both of their lives.

Here is my breaking point: my son, as a youth leader (since boy scouts deputize teens to serve in leadership capacities) being asked to leave an organization that he cares about because he is gay. Or, making himself stay in the closet to not be dismissed. Not even touching on scoutmasters, this potentially affects kids as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Please. Assuming you are the person to whom I was responding, you continued this irrational belief that you were responding to only one person, assumed that I was that person, and simultaneously came at me rather aggressively while failing even to read my statements. "Crazy" isn't an ad hominem attack - I wasn't suggesting that you are literally crazy, but that you are being crazy in this thread.

WTF?

I think the PP was saying something akin to, "I didn't say you are fat. I said you look fat today."

She started her post with "Hey Crazy," and now she's trying to back off of it. Sorry, when you start a post like this, there's no margin for "creative reinterpretations."

I agree, this thread should die. Too bad, because the discussions that some (not all) were trying to have was whether you can affect change from within or without an organization. It's a really interesting topic. But if some can't discuss it without calling other posters hypocrites, cuckoo, and crazy, there's no point continuing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scouts have oaths and laws, but they are too long and complex for children to truly understand or to put into practice.


Beware of any organization that wears paramilitary uniforms, removes children regularly for periods of time from their parents supervion and loves to march in parades.

The Boy Scouts provide an indroctrination that is not beneficial to children.

cuckoo cuckoo cuckoo cuckoo

For what it is worth, the "cuckoo" poster (see above) seems to be someone who is upset with people who criticize the Boy Scouts in any way.

Not someone who is supportive of gay rights or is trying to get people to boycott the Boy Scouts.


Just thought I'd point that out as the thread

[Anonymous]

The "cuckoo" poster at 3/23/11 10:52 was actually responding to this quite thoughtful post:

Anonymous wrote: My 11 year old nephew absolutely loves Boy Scouts. His mom is Unitarian and his dad is an agnostic. He has two gay uncles. It has become a big time commitment for my nephew and his parents and my sister and BIL would not mind if my nephew quit. But he loves it. And they love and support him. My nephew is outspokanely gay friendly, so I don't know when his views will clash with the Boy Scouts biases.


cuckoo cuckoo cuckoo cuckoo


In fact, I can't find the "cuckoo" in conjunction with the post you've linked it to.

[Anonymous]

OK, I did find the first "cuckoo" at 3/22 @ 22:29. Apparently the "cuckoo" poster is an equal opportunity troll, because he or she has "cuckooed" both anti-Boy Scout and pro-Boy Scout posts.

Another reason to dump this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I agree, this thread should die. Too bad, because the discussions that some (not all) were trying to have was whether you can affect change from within or without an organization. It's a really interesting topic. But if some can't discuss it without calling other posters hypocrites, cuckoo, and crazy, there's no point continuing.

I actually disagree-I'd rather not engage the trolls (ignore them) and continue the discussion. But then again, I came to this discussion late.

[Anonymous]

The problem is, besides the trolls, there are people who just want to shout and name-call instead of having a discussion.

[Anonymous]

This is one of the most interesting discussions I have read on DCUM. Don't let the few trolls get in the way.

[Anonymous]

You can't have a "discussion" when people who disagree call each other names like "hypocrite."

[Anonymous]

From arguments about whether the organization can be changed to arguments about who's name calling? Hmm. We can either get the discussion back on track or let it die.

[Anonymous]

Let it die. Both sides have said their pieces. It's clear where each side stands. One side thinks you have to boycott, and working for change from within just makes you a hypocrite. The other side thinks you can work from within, and/or there's other good things about the Boy Scouts. And the twain shall never meet. Is there really anything more to say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can't have a "discussion" when people who disagree call each other names like "hypocrite."

Why not? Calling someone a hypocrite isn't the same as calling someone a poopy-head. If I'm presenting my views publicly, calling for others to agree with me, and someone thinks they're hypocritical, they're welcome to make that claim. The same applies if they think I've put forward "crazy" or "idiotic" ideas.

If they do, it's only meaningful if they provide some support, of course. I don't like it when someone just says, "you're nuts" and nothing more, or just posts some lame emoticon or something.

If you're the person complaining about ad hominem attacks, I don't think you understand that concept adequately.