Lonely and pure or together and making compromises?

[ivwshane]

You have missed the point...shakes head.

[Joepublic2]

Originally Posted by Atreus21

Why don't gay scouts start their own scouting organization that lacks such criteria?

Because "progressives" are never about building the new, only tearing down the old and leaving nothing to replace it. Then they act shocked when their societies and citizens revert to crab mentality and become a backstabbing mass of atomized, amoral and greedy human beings that spend their days coming up with new ways to try to make their fellows miserable. Luckily, this state can't persist for long before it all falls apart.

[Rob M.]

Looks like they are willing to compromise, potentially.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/28/us/boy...html?hpt=hp_t1

Get with the changing times, or else!

[alzan]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

Looks like they are willing to compromise, potentially.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/28/us/boy...html?hpt=hp_t1

Get with the changing times, or else!

Potentially good news, we'll see what if anything happens after the national council.

More accurately, welcome to the 21st century.

What "or else"; would the "LGBT mafia" mete out punishment for the backward-thinking council?

[zsdersw]

Reduced funding is the "or else".

[Rob M.]

Originally Posted by zsdersw

Reduced funding is the "or else".

Why don't people just leave the organization? It's better served for a homosexual person to go elsewhere instead of trying to force people to "change with the times" which is really what this is all about.

No telling, one day they could get enough power to force Churches (other private organizations) to change their principles.

Eh, only time will tell. This is probably the largest issue to date, and have far reaching effects. Probably like the race issue.

[zsdersw]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

Why don't people just leave the organization? It's better served for a homosexual person to go elsewhere instead of trying to force people to "change with the times" which is really what this is all about.

Many have left the organization. Many others refuse to join because of their stupid position on this. That has an impact on funding, which is part of why I said reduced funding is the "or else".

No telling, one day they could get enough power to force Churches (other private organizations) to change their principles.

Only by doing what consumers should do more: vote with their wallets.

[Rob M.]

Originally Posted by zsdersw

Many have left the organization. Many others refuse to join because of their stupid position on this. That has an impact on funding, which is part of why I said reduced funding is the "or else".



Only by doing what consumers should do more: vote with their wallets.

Well so be it. They fall, they fall. Chances are that changing the rules won't necessarily change members' attitudes. That's the important part, IMO.

I don't see why homosexuals would want to be anywhere near a place that doesn't want them. You change to meet the requirements of said organization, not them for you, in this instance. You can't force people to accept things. This has never worked! If anything, its being done under false pretenses -- to keep funding, not because they accept homosexuality.

[zsdersw]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

Well so be it. They fall, they fall. Chances are that changing the rules won't necessarily change members' attitudes. That's the important part, IMO.

I don't see why homosexuals would want to be anywhere near a place that doesn't want them. You can't force people to accept things. This has never worked! If anything, its being done under false pretenses -- to keep funding, not because they accept homosexuality.

You assume that Boy Scout members have as much of a problem with homosexuality as the organization's leadership. That's not a good assumption to make.

[s0me0nesmind1]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

Well so be it. They fall, they fall. Chances are that changing the rules won't necessarily change members' attitudes. That's the important part, IMO.

I don't see why homosexuals would want to be anywhere near a place that doesn't want them. You change to meet the requirements of said organization, not them for you, in this instance. You can't force people to accept things. This has never worked! If anything, its being done under false pretenses -- to keep funding, not because they accept homosexuality.

You can have a gay club, but not a non-gay club. That is RACIST! errr homosexual-ist? Either way, one is right but not the other, wether it's the race card or the gay card, it's complete emphasis on how pathetic both groups are - and a further confirmation as to why both are looked down upon.

[zsdersw]

Originally Posted by s0me0nesmind1

You can have a gay club, but not a non-gay club. That is RACIST! errr homosexual-ist? Either way, one is right but not the other, wether it's the race card or the gay card, it's complete emphasis on how pathetic both groups are - and a further confirmation as to why both are looked down upon.

Clubs with unpopular membership limitations are looked down upon, but they can exist... as the courts have ruled.

You're essentially saying that people shouldn't look down upon things they don't like... when you yourself are doing the same. That's hypocritical.

[s0me0nesmind1]

Not at all. I look down on a group of people that are so mindlessly pathetic that they want to get into a group just becaue they said they aren't allowed. It's like a treehouse that little boys built with a sign outside of it that says "NO GIRLS ALLOWED!" Except in this case, it is dull, mindless, pathetic, and useless Americans with no life of their own.

[zsdersw]

Originally Posted by s0me0nesmind1

I look down on a group of people that are so mindlessly pathetic that they want to get into a group just becaue they said they aren't allowed.

You assume too much. If you think most of the gay people who have either been kicked out of the Boy Scouts or want to join but were denied are in this fight simply because they aren't allowed, well, you're far more stupid than I thought.

Except in this case, it is dull, mindless, pathetic, and useless Americans with no life of their own.

You think this is true of most gay people in, formerly in, or seeking to be in the Boy Scouts? Really? Wow, you're an idiot.

[Rob M.]

Originally Posted by zsdersw

You assume that Boy Scout members have as much of a problem with homosexuality as the organization's leadership. That's not a good assumption to make.

Perhaps you're right. But of they're still part of the organization, they obviously agree with what's going there, or either I'm totally misinterpreting it.

[zsdersw]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

Perhaps you're right. But of they're still part of the organization, they obviously agree with what's going there, or either I'm totally misinterpreting it.

They probably agree with most of what's going on... but have a problem with this part. The obvious course of action isn't necessarily to quit the organization.

[alzan]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

It's better served for a homosexual person to go elsewhere instead of trying to force people to "change with the times" which is really what this is all about.

Better for a homosexual person to go elsewhere? Where exactly would that be; different part of town, state, country, planet?

Originally Posted by Rob M.

I don't see why homosexuals would want to be anywhere near a place that doesn't want them. You change to meet the requirements of said organization, not them for you, in this instance. You can't force people to accept things. This has never worked! If anything, its being done under false pretenses -- to keep funding, not because they accept homosexuality.

You don't know that the larger majority of BSA does not want LGBT members and leaders. I would say the majority of the fundamentalist and evangelical religious members do not but the BSA is more than just it's religious members.

You change to meet the requirements of said organization? So if an organization that you wanted to join had as it's policy no religious-affiliated members you would become an atheist? Because being or not being religious is certainly a changeable aspect of a person's life, whereas a person's sexuality is hardwired in the brain.

[Oyeve]

Originally Posted by Throckmorton

What part of this don't you understand? They're already compromising by not killing gays.

• KJV: (King James Version): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

KJ is NOT the original version of the bible. Hell, its not even the fiftieth version.

We would be better off just banning religion period. Especially christianity as it has been changed hundreds of time over the centuries and even had to blatently copy a third of it.