If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Jay Honeck wrote: 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. So it's just a matter of which bigotry you agree with. If the group won't let in Blacks they are bad, if they won't let in Jews they are bad, if they won't let in gay people they are ok? What about Gypsies? Catholics? Margy |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
"Steve House" wrote in message ....- to arbitrarily define that "marriage" can only be between persons of opposite gender may be traditional but it is an anachronism based solely on an aversion to homosexuality. Ah, so even in prehistory we are to blame all on "homophobes". Tripe. The notion of a two-gender relationship around a core family unit evolved millenia ago, even before the concept was recognized or codified as "marriage". It evolved that way because even the most primitive of human groups could recognize and understand the benefit to the entire clan of a structured society and of a cohesive social fabric in which to provide security for the clan and to raise and protect their young as they grew and learned the ways of the clan. To state that such an evolution was based on an arbitrary aversion to homosexuality is ludicrous. It presupposes that homosexual love is somehow of lesser moral quality than heterosexual love. I can't quite get my hands around a picture of a primitive clan discussing the "...lesser moral quality..." of other members of the clan. Such a prehistoric evolution more likely simply recognized that a homosexual relationship made no concrete contribution to the stability, security, or social interweave of the clan. JG |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
I refuse to support United Way and any other organization who
discriminates against the BSA. Saw this year where UW did not meet their quota G Won't meet if I have anything to say about it. Big John On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:28:17 -0700, "Peter Duniho" wrote: "C J Campbell" wrote in message ... My personal feelings about the matter is that any private organization should be able to discriminate against any group that it wishes for any reason. I agree with you there. However: * 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. * As a former scout myself, I look forward to a day when in good conscience allow my own son to participate in the BSA. The BSA has a lot of great things to offer. I will continue to be vocal in my desire for the BSA to change their policy, for this reason. Will I ask the government to force a change? No, absolutely not. But if the change happens from within, as a result of pressure from without, I see nothing wrong with that. In other words, the BSA should be permitted to do what they feel is best. However, they should not be surprised when they receive social criticism. Pete |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
As I read this thread it seems that Gays do not check their mags at
the same RPM as Straights? (on thread) Before the posters come to blows, I'd suggest the thread be moved to a 'gay' site where it can be argued to eternity. Big John. On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:28:17 -0700, "Peter Duniho" wrote: "C J Campbell" wrote in message ... My personal feelings about the matter is that any private organization should be able to discriminate against any group that it wishes for any reason. I agree with you there. However: * 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. * As a former scout myself, I look forward to a day when in good conscience allow my own son to participate in the BSA. The BSA has a lot of great things to offer. I will continue to be vocal in my desire for the BSA to change their policy, for this reason. Will I ask the government to force a change? No, absolutely not. But if the change happens from within, as a result of pressure from without, I see nothing wrong with that. In other words, the BSA should be permitted to do what they feel is best. However, they should not be surprised when they receive social criticism. Pete |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Big John wrote: As I read this thread it seems that Gays do not check their mags at the same RPM as Straights? (on thread) Before the posters come to blows, I'd suggest the thread be moved to a 'gay' site where it can be argued to eternity. But we aren't gay, we are straight. Margy |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Steve House wrote: You may not personally wish to have a black person as the scoutmaster of the local scout troop, your opposition based solely on his race, but the law prevents that irrational prejudice from impacting on the selection of the scoutmaster. The law provides no such thing. The Boy Scouts is a private organization and *could* exclude blacks if they chose (which they do not choose to do). George Patterson Brute force has an elegance all its own. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Margy
But you are attracting Gays and the tenor of the posts is changing. None of the posts now have anything to do with aviation or the aircraft noise factor thread it started out about. I do a lot of posting off thread but 'most' of these posts are about my life with heavy iron and places where I flew and the surroundings, etc. A few, like this one, could be considered a "net nanny" post I guess, which is not good. I therefore apologize before I get taken to the cleaners. G Big John On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 22:20:29 -0400, Margy Natalie wrote: Big John wrote: As I read this thread it seems that Gays do not check their mags at the same RPM as Straights? (on thread) Before the posters come to blows, I'd suggest the thread be moved to a 'gay' site where it can be argued to eternity. But we aren't gay, we are straight. Margy |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
"Big John" wrote in message
... Margy But you are attracting Gays Yep, Margy's just busing us in from everywhere. --Gary |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Gary
No way can you play the race card. Big John On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 03:15:49 GMT, "Gary L. Drescher" wrote: "Big John" wrote in message .. . Margy But you are attracting Gays Yep, Margy's just busing us in from everywhere. --Gary |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid Question About Newsgroups | RST Engineering | General Aviation | 1 | January 17th 05 05:59 PM |
Re; What do you think? | Kelsibutt | Naval Aviation | 0 | September 29th 03 06:55 AM |
Newsgroups and Email | Jim Weir | Home Built | 8 | July 8th 03 11:30 PM |
Newsgroups and Email | Jim Weir | Owning | 8 | July 8th 03 11:30 PM |