Lonely and pure or together and making compromises?

[Retro Rob]

Nor do I, I simply offered it as a statement of fact. It's happened to many over the years and will continue to happen; holding unpopular views has always had consequences for individuals and organizations.

Will this marginalize the BSA out of existence; probably but it will take a long time. I'm actually amused by the possibility of a BSA-like organization that had was open to people of all sexual preferences; it would be interesting to chart it's popularity and growth and see if x number of people leaving BSA equaled y people joining the open organization.

It is fact.

When it comes to religious people, this is how they can differentiate themselves from others - not rollin' with the trends, so to speak.

If a religious organization, or any organization which holds to Biblical teaching, depends on public and societal acceptance for it to have sustenance, it probably isn't a true organization anyway, and it's more than likely a weak one.

Outsiders will recognize the strengths and weaknesses of an organization based on it's members, and judge accordingly. I would venture to say that the stronger an organization, the less outside opinion matters, and the weaker, the more outside opinions matter.

 

[zsdersw]

So it's possible you would stop supporting gay marriage, in theroy? Thanks for being honest.

Everyone has their price.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I'm curious why any homosexual would WANT to join a homophobic organization like the Boyscouts. I know I don't want my son growing up to think that it's okay to exclude certain members of society simply because they are gay.

 

[alzan]

It is fact.

When it comes to religious people, this is how they can differentiate themselves from others - not rollin' with the trends, so to speak.

If a religious organization, or any organization which holds to Biblical teaching, depends on public and societal acceptance for it to have sustenance, it probably isn't a true organization anyway, and it's more than likely a weak one.

Outsiders will recognize the strengths and weaknesses of an organization based on it's members, and judge accordingly. I would venture to say that the stronger an organization, the less outside opinion matters, and the weaker, the more outside opinions matter.

I'm not sure that homosexuality is a "trend".

An organization like the BSA does need public and societal acceptance for it to have sustenance, it can't exist on funding or tax exempt status alone. As societal and public opinion on subjects like homosexuality change so too will the BSA have to change in order to survive. Are they commited to helping guide young boys into young adult males or just certain "types" of young boys? I actually think that within a generation or two that if the BSA is still around it will be accepting of and open to homosexuals, be they leaders or scouts, simply because of the change of attitudes of the future leaders of the organization.

I think one also has to look at the attitudes of the members of organizations as well, just as not all Catholics in the pews are in lockstep agreement with the RCC on subjects such as homosexuality, so too are the members of the BSA not in lockstep agreement with the leadership. Does the acceptance of homosexuality by some members make the organization "weaker"? IMO no. Being set in ones ways is not necessarily a good thing, sticking to a certain pattern of thinking because its tradition or because its "worked okay in the past" are not good reasons to keep doing them.

You speak of "strong" vs. "weak". Persons, organizations, life are not one or the other, there are many shades of gray in between.

 

[Retro Rob]

I'm not sure that homosexuality is a "trend".

No, homosexuality isn't... it has been around for a very, very long time.

However, the legalizing of gay marriage is fairly new in this country, and is what I was speaking of.

An organization like the BSA does need public and societal acceptance for it to have sustenance, it can't exist on funding or tax exempt status alone. As societal and public opinion on subjects like homosexuality change so too will the BSA have to change in order to survive. Are they commited to helping guide young boys into young adult males or just certain "types" of young boys? I actually think that within a generation or two that if the BSA is still around it will be accepting of and open to homosexuals, be they leaders or scouts, simply because of the change of attitudes of the future leaders of the organization.

I agree. By them being a private organization, we can't tell them they have to accept homosexuals, but boys are boys whether they're straight or not, so I can see how that's viewed as discriminating.

I think one also has to look at the attitudes of the members of organizations as well, just as not all Catholics in the pews are in lockstep agreement with the RCC on subjects such as homosexuality, so too are the members of the BSA not in lockstep agreement with the leadership. Does the acceptance of homosexuality by some members make the organization "weaker"? IMO no. Being set in ones ways is not necessarily a good thing, sticking to a certain pattern of thinking because its tradition or because its "worked okay in the past" are not good reasons to keep doing them.

That explain the amount of dissidents within their organization.

I agree, being stuck in certain way isn't always good, but religious organizations shoudn't compromise what's in the Bible (for instance, bowing to idols, lying to and stealing from members, pedophilia etc) and that's the main reason why many view the CC as one of the most hypocrtical organizations on the planet.

You're right that we shouldn't hold on to things for the reasons you mention, however, if some believe they're accountable to a higher authority (just God, not fear of hell or all that nonsense), then it is probably in their personal best interest to not accept it.

You speak of "strong" vs. "weak". Persons, organizations, life are not one or the other, there are many shades of gray in between

Yeah that's true. I just couldn't think of a better way to describe what I meant there.

 

[alzan]

No, homosexuality isn't... it has been around for a very, very long time.

However, the legalizing of gay marriage is fairly new in this country, and is what I was speaking of.



I agree. By them being a private organization, we can't tell them they have to accept homosexuals, but boys are boys whether they're straight or not, so I can see how that's viewed as discriminating.



That explain the amount of dissidents within their organization.

I agree, being stuck in certain way isn't always good, but religious organizations shoudn't compromise what's in the Bible (for instance, bowing to idols, lying to and stealing from members, pedophilia etc) and that's the main reason why many view the CC as one of the most hypocrtical organizations on the planet.

You're right that we shouldn't hold on to things for the reasons you mention, however, if some believe they're accountable to a higher authority (just God, not fear of hell or all that nonsense), then it is probably in their personal best interest to not accept it.



Yeah that's true. I just couldn't think of a better way to describe what I meant there.

No one is asking the churches of whatever stripe that they allow homosexuals to be married in their church or that <gasp> they be allowed as members; all that is being asked is that the government stop discriminating as to who can receive a marriage license as well as granting the same rights and protections to all its citizens. It really doesn't get any simpler.

Unfortunately it's not just the RCC.

 

[Moonbeam]

Oh, I get it:

I don't like gays = Bigot.

I don't like Christians = non-bigot

Gotcha'...

The whole sad nature of bigots is that they don't get anything. A bigot is blind with a blindness he calls seeing. A bigot calls his prison freedom.

 

[peonyu]

Start a gay boy scouts instead of bitching ?

 

[nehalem256]

all that is being asked is that the government stop discriminating as to who can receive a marriage license as well as granting the same rights and protections to all its citizens. It really doesn't get any simpler.

This is not at all what is being asked.

What is being asked is for the government to treat homosexual couples the same as heterosexual couples despite the fact that they are not the same.

 

[Xecuter]

This is not at all what is being asked.

What is being asked is for the government to treat homosexual couples the same as heterosexual couples despite the fact that they are not the same.

Blacks aren't the same as whites
Women arent the same as men
Jews arent the same as Christians

You realize this homosexual debate is just repeating history with different labels?!

 

[nehalem256]

Blacks aren't the same as whites
Women arent the same as men
Jews arent the same as Christians

You realize this homosexual debate is just repeating history with different labels?!

There is no difference between Jews and Christians. At least no more difference than say between Yankee and Red Sox fans.

Funny how liberals are the ones who claim there is no biological basis for race, which would mean there is no real difference between blacks and whites.

Men and women are however difference. And more importantly homosexual and heterosexual RELATIONSHIPS are fundamentally different.

 

[ivwshane]

There is no difference between Jews and Christians. At least no more difference than say between Yankee and Red Sox fans.

Funny how liberals are the ones who claim there is no biological basis for race, which would mean there is no real difference between blacks and whites.

Men and women are however difference. And more importantly homosexual and heterosexual RELATIONSHIPS are fundamentally different.

How are they different? The type of sex they have?

 

[nehalem256]

How are they different? The type of sex they have?

Heterosexual couples are essential to the continuation of humanity. Homosexual couples are not.

Did you pay attention in sex ed class or not?

 

[ivwshane]

Heterosexual couples are essential to the continuation of humanity. Homosexual couples are not.

Did you pay attention in sex ed class or not?

So we should also be treating non child bearing couples differently then as well right?

Also I'd love for you to point out where marriage is defined as only a child producing couple.

 

[Xecuter]

There is no difference between Jews and Christians. At least no more difference than say between Yankee and Red Sox fans.

Funny how liberals are the ones who claim there is no biological basis for race, which would mean there is no real difference between blacks and whites.

Men and women are however difference. And more importantly homosexual and heterosexual RELATIONSHIPS are fundamentally different.

Read a history textbook buddy. Same thing that is happening right now with gay marriage happened with the civil rights movement in the 60's and womens suffrage in the 20's.

Get the government out of my relationships!!1!!!eleven - Sound familiar?

Thanks for calling me a liberal too - nowhere have I said I am a "liberal," but I definitely can call you a partisan hack.

 

[nehalem256]

Get the government out of my relationships!!1!!!eleven - Sound familiar?

Demanding that the government stay out of your relationship and demanding that the government recognize your relationship...

 

[nehalem256]

So we should also be treating non child bearing couples differently then as well right?

I would say that if a man and a woman do not want children they should not get married.

Of course unless we are to subject all couples to lie-detector tests before marriage you should see the inherent impracticality of this.

And of course this exact question has been answered by the courts

This restriction, the Court reasoned, did not offend the Due Process Clause because procreation and child rearing were central to the constitutional protection given to marriage.[8]

With respect to the claim of an equal-protection violation, the Court found that childless marriages presented no more than a theoretical imperfection in the state's rationale for limiting marriage to different-sex couples. It found the plaintiffs' reliance on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Loving v. Virginia, finding an anti-miscegenation law, failed to provide a parallel: "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.

Also I'd love for you to point out where marriage is defined as only a child producing couple.

Marriage exists because men and women reproduce together.

Do you think it is coincidence that nearly every culture in the world has marriage between men and women, but not between people of the same sex?

 

[ivwshane]

Demanding that the government stay out of your relationship and demanding that the government recognize your relationship...

Yes we get it, you can't comprehend the difference.

 

[ivwshane]

I would say that if a man and a woman do not want children they should not get married.

Of course unless we are to subject all couples to lie-detector tests before marriage you should see the inherent impracticality of this.

And of course this exact question has been answered by the courts





Marriage exists because men and women reproduce together.

Do you think it is coincidence that nearly every culture in the world has marriage between men and women, but not between people of the same sex?

Holy shit! not only are you stupid but crazy too?

Again, show me, in America, where marriage is defined as only a couple that intends to produce children.

It's really not that difficult, either your claim can be proven or you are full of shit.

 

[nehalem256]

Yes we get it, you can't comprehend the difference.

Holy shit! not only are you stupid but crazy too?

Again, show me, in America, where marriage is defined as only a couple that intends to produce children.

It's really not that difficult, either your claim can be proven or you are full of shit.

Marriage is define as only a couple that CAN theoretically produce children. This is true not only in America, but across the world.

Sorry, I forgot to include the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson#Appeal_to_the_Minnesota_Supreme_Court

This restriction, the Court reasoned, did not offend the Due Process Clause because procreation and child rearing were central to the constitutional protection given to marriage.

This is established constitutional law.

 

[nehalem256]

Yes we get it, you can't comprehend the difference.

I comprehend the difference.

You asking the government to stay out of your relationship.

And demanding that they recognize your relationship.

This is an inherently contradictory position. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[ivwshane]

Marriage is define as only a couple that CAN theoretically produce children. This is true not only in America, but across the world.

Sorry, I forgot to include the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson#Appeal_to_the_Minnesota_Supreme_Court



This is established constitutional law.

Thanks. Indeed states are allowed to define it differently.

http://www.clgs.org/marriage/state-definitions



So now you have proven that gay couples are treated differently by way of a narrowly defined definition which has multiple definitions across each state and across the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage) which you have inadvertantly proved that gay marraige is indeed a repeat of past intolerances.

I'll further expand the similarities:

Blacks were once defined/considered as 3/5 a person and not entitled to the same rights as a white man. The definition was changed and they were given equal rights.

Women were not part of the definition of eligible voter, the definition changed and they now have the right to vote.

Gay couples didn't meet the definition of marraige and are not afforded the benefits given to those that are married.

 

[ivwshane]

I comprehend the difference.

You asking the government to stay out of your relationship.

And demanding that they recognize your relationship.

This is an inherently contradictory position. You cannot have it both ways.

Sure you can, the government is already in "Your relationship" and to get it out it it would have to recognize your relationship.

 

[nehalem256]

Thanks. Indeed states are allowed to define it differently.

http://www.clgs.org/marriage/state-definitions

So states are allowed to restrict marriage to people of the opposite sex. Glad you agree.

So now you have proven that gay couples are treated differently by way of a narrowly defined definition which has multiple definitions across each state and across the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage) which you have inadvertantly proved that gay marriage is indeed a repeat of past intolerances.

And which all across the time and geography marriage has been between a members of the opposite sex.

What important distinction do you see between marriage in other countries?

Is the fact that in some places you can get married at 17 and others 18 an important distinction.

I'll further expand the similarities:

Blacks were once defined/considered as 3/5 a person and not entitled to the same rights as a white man. The definition was changed and they were given equal rights.

Women were not part of the definition of eligible voter, the definition changed and they now have the right to vote.

None of this has anything to do with gay marriage. Gay people are not prohibited from marrying. They simple have no interest in marriage.

Gay couples didn't meet the definition of marraige and are not afforded the benefits given to those that are married.

Gay couples don't meet the definition of marriage. Glad to see that you are at least conceding you want to redefine marriage. And why would we grant marriage benefits to relationships that are not marriage?

The current definition of marriage also keeps object sexuals from marrying. But I bet you have no problem with that.

 

[nehalem256]

Sure you can, the government is already in "Your relationship" and to get it out it it would have to recognize your relationship.

Marriage is inherently about having society/government involved in your relationship.

Why do you think you have to go to court to get divorced? HINT: Its not because government is staying out of your relationship.