About those anti-aviatoin newsgroups

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...

"Jim Baker" wrote in message
et...

What a hoot McNicoll. I doubt you even know the definition of cogent.
It
is not a valid, forceful, reasoned, cogent argument to say that a
discriminatory group (and the BSA is by admission) should be accorded
the
discount rate use of public buildings because they do good deeds for the
people holding the reservations book. It may be fact, but it isn't a
sound
argument. If it were, the gays would be out there planting trees and
flowers like crazy and demanding the same benefits. In fact though, as
far
as I know, they just demand the same treatment based on legalities.


I don't believe I've posted anything at all about the BSA or any similar
group.

I didn't say you did. I said you made an error in logic and proper word
selection. And, you painted an entire population with the same brush which
is almost never correct.


P.S. I just casually wandered into this thread and found it
interesting,
if
grossly OT. I have to say though, that for someone with some obvious,
at
least to me, intelligence, you've done the best job here of all the
posters
of posting inane, shallow, childish responses. For God's sake man, try
to
do better. LOL


Example?

Well, I would point you to the current thread to read all the posts. You
could compare and contrast your answers to the others and maybe draw the
same conclusion and that I and others have drawn over the years...that you
usually prefer to post one line zingers that add very little to an
intelligent, thoughtful, in-depth discussion. It's the same tactic John
Tarver uses and he is a literal pariah on Usenet.

Jay Honeck wrote:

* The BSA should not enjoy preferential treatment or be granted any
sort
of government support. As a private organization, they should be
self-sufficient if they wish to discriminate.

This argument was used against the Scouts here in Iowa City, and has
resulted in them being charged the "corporate rate" for using the schools
when they want to hold a meeting or function. Of course, this price is
impossibly high, and has resulted in the Scouts being driven out of the
schools.

Jay,

Would you feel the same way if the BSA had a no blacks or no Jews policy rather
than a no gays policy?

Margy

"Margy Natalie" wrote in message
...
|
|
| Jay Honeck wrote:
|
| * The BSA should not enjoy preferential treatment or be granted
any
| sort
| of government support. As a private organization, they should be
| self-sufficient if they wish to discriminate.
|
| This argument was used against the Scouts here in Iowa City, and has
| resulted in them being charged the "corporate rate" for using the
schools
| when they want to hold a meeting or function. Of course, this price is
| impossibly high, and has resulted in the Scouts being driven out of the
| schools.
|
| Jay,
|
| Would you feel the same way if the BSA had a no blacks or no Jews policy
rather
| than a no gays policy?
|

Would you object if gay groups that have a no straights policy were allowed
to use the schools for free?

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Margy Natalie" wrote in message
...
|
|
| Jay Honeck wrote:
|
| * The BSA should not enjoy preferential treatment or be granted
any
| sort
| of government support. As a private organization, they should be
| self-sufficient if they wish to discriminate.
|
| This argument was used against the Scouts here in Iowa City, and has
| resulted in them being charged the "corporate rate" for using the
schools
| when they want to hold a meeting or function. Of course, this price
is
| impossibly high, and has resulted in the Scouts being driven out of
the
| schools.
|
| Jay,
|
| Would you feel the same way if the BSA had a no blacks or no Jews policy
rather
| than a no gays policy?
|

Would you object if gay groups that have a no straights policy were
allowed
to use the schools for free?

CJ, you cannot cite a single documented instance of that ever occurring.

--Gary

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:22:48 GMT, "Gary L. Drescher"
wrote:

Would you object if gay groups that have a no straights policy were
allowed
to use the schools for free?

CJ, you cannot cite a single documented instance of that ever occurring.

Can't you? Takes the form of academic clubs, most places, IIRC.

Rob

Would you feel the same way if the BSA had a no blacks or no Jews policy
rather
than a no gays policy?

Well, Margy, if you are you asking if I would be upset that the Scouts were
banned from the schools for hypothetically banning Jewish and black members,
the answer is no. In your example, the Scouts (or any other group) would
quite deservedly have earned the wrath of the School Board and the Civil
Rights community by arbitrarily banning members based on skin color or
religion.

Apples and oranges.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:OEc0b.184590$uu5.34852@sccrnsc04...
[...] In your example, the Scouts (or any other group) would
quite deservedly have earned the wrath of the School Board and the Civil
Rights community by arbitrarily banning members based on skin color or
religion.

And therein lies the crux of the disagreement (contrary to what was said
earlier by someone else).

You apparently think that sexual preference is different from race, and is
not one that should be protected. Maybe you think it's some kind of option.
That's the classic religious right argument: "it's a lifestyle choice, and
they could change if they wanted to".

Well, that's just not true. Sexual "preference" doesn't mean the person has
decided to prefer one gender over another. It means that nature has decided
that they will prefer one gender over another. A gay didn't decide to be
gay any more than you decided to be heterosexual. The vast numbers of gay
people who have suffered years of self-inflicted psychological torment
because they do NOT want to be gay is about as clear evidence as anyone
could ask for that it's not a choice.

In any case, clearly religious belief IS a choice, and is protected. So
even if sexual preference were a choice, your objection to discrimination
against Jews is only consistent if you also object to discrimination against
gays.

Margy's question is very much apples and apples.

Pete

[...] In your example, the Scouts (or any other group) would
quite deservedly have earned the wrath of the School Board and the Civil
Rights community by arbitrarily banning members based on skin color or
religion.

And therein lies the crux of the disagreement (contrary to what was said
earlier by someone else).

You apparently think that sexual preference is different from race, and is
not one that should be protected. Maybe you think it's some kind of
option.

No, Peter, this has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is a lifestyle
"choice" or not. (I personally don't believe anyone would choose such a
difficult path for themselves.)

This has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that skin color or religious
preference is patently and demonstrably harmless, while sexual attraction is
potentially and demonstrably harmful -- especially in groups of pre-teen
boys (and girls).

I wouldn't want my Girl Scout daughter chaperoned overnight by a male troop
leader, either, for fear of what might happen. How is this any different
than having a homosexual Boy Scout leader?

THAT is an "apples and apples" comparison.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:OEc0b.184590$uu5.34852@sccrnsc04...
Would you feel the same way if the BSA had a no blacks or no Jews policy
rather
than a no gays policy?

Well, Margy, if you are you asking if I would be upset that the Scouts
were
banned from the schools for hypothetically banning Jewish and black
members,
the answer is no. In your example, the Scouts (or any other group) would
quite deservedly have earned the wrath of the School Board and the Civil
Rights community by arbitrarily banning members based on skin color or
religion.

How about the collegiate groups for blacks, women, Hispanics...? They're
heroes.

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:OEc0b.184590$uu5.34852@sccrnsc04...
Would you feel the same way if the BSA had a no blacks or no Jews
policy
rather
than a no gays policy?

Well, Margy, if you are you asking if I would be upset that the Scouts
were
banned from the schools for hypothetically banning Jewish and black
members,
the answer is no. In your example, the Scouts (or any other group)
would
quite deservedly have earned the wrath of the School Board and the Civil
Rights community by arbitrarily banning members based on skin color or
religion.

How about the collegiate groups for blacks, women, Hispanics...? They're
heroes.

Do they exclude members based on race, gender, etc.? And use public-school
facilities to meet?

Look, putting aside the legal question for a moment, there's nothing morally
unreasonable about a group of people organizing around a shared interest or
activity. But it doesn't work to declare every prejudice the group has as a
morally legitimate shared interest; for example, it would be immoral for
your local golf organization to declare that its shared interest is in
playing golf among white people, so that nonwhites can be excluded. In
reality, its shared activity is just playing golf, and the exclusion of
nonwhites would be a shameful prejudice (though legally permitted--as it
should be--if the group is private).

In the same way, if the central activity of the Boy Scouts were to get
together and worship deities, then their exclusion of atheists would be
morally unobjectionable. Or if the Scouts' central activity were to conduct
heterosexual orgies, then their exclusion of gay people would be morally
unobjectionable. But if instead their central activities are things like
tying knots and lighting campfires, and learning about civics and
leadership, then to exclude gays and atheists on the grounds that they're
inherently bad role models (which is the Scouts' official reason for the
exclusion--see their web site) is just as shamefully prejudiced as it would
be for the Scouts to exclude blacks and Jews on the grounds that *they* are
inherently bad role models.

--Gary