|
| Thread: Popped in the Pooper in a Pup Tent |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
posted February 09, 2013 01:48 PM |
|
|
If I do not agree that gay people should be allowed into a religious group (scouts) then I'm branded a bigot, since I do not regard a homosexual's freedom to be superior to that of a religious person.
So in order to be accepted, I'd have to sacrifice my own stance.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 09, 2013 01:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Not sure why you find it so hard to consider the solution of just establishing a non-religious scout programme
Actually that makes perfect sense. If scout organizations are like some sort of private club and some are part of a religous context, you are right. I always thought of them as a nation-wide structured nature programme funded by everyone's taxes.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 09, 2013 01:51 PM |
|
|
The only offensive thing here is the fact thatthe religious side is trying to put homosexuals in the same corner than drug addicts - "you can change if you want to", it's just a temptation -, and the only reason they do so is the fact that acceptance of a genetic or biological disposition would make god Jahwe a monster, even more of a monster, one is tempted to say, which is something thatz can't be: God can't be a monster, therefore homosexuality can't be a biological fact like being male or female, but must be a "condition", self-inflicted, and a "choice".
And since we are at biological facts: what about hermaphrodites. How do THEY fit into the plan?
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted February 09, 2013 01:52 PM |
|
|
@Artu I was under the impression that scout's received substantial private funding, but i don't know, they may also be funded publicly too.
But then again so is the military.
@JJ, Nobody is forcing you to join the scouts, nor forcing you to change who you are, a more equitable relationship could be achieved from doing so, that's true, but I see no force. (focusing on this case)
And isn't the argument same for those who are branded 'bigots'? Anyone who merely tolerates or outright dislikes homosexuals must've had a bad upbringing, or brainwashed as a child, or simply have a genetic fault.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 09, 2013 02:47 PM |
|
|
I have nothing against religious groups. What I do have against is if those groups discriminate against conditions that are unchangeable for a vast of a majority of the people who are inflicted by said condition.
Quote:
If I do not agree that gay people should be allowed into a religious group (scouts) then I'm branded a bigot,
In that case you are.
Quote:
since I do not regard a homosexual's freedom to be superior to that of a religious person.
This is about equal civil liberties and rights for all people no matter gender, sexuality or ethnicity.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 09, 2013 03:11 PM |
|
|
You can join the Scouts with 7. Obviously, in that age you cannot join without the consent of the parents, and more realistically spoken, you will be joined more often than not. Clearly at that point your sexual orientation isn't an issue.
Now, you have been at the Scouts for 4, 5, 6 or even 7 years. Your awakening sexuality is generally not without problems, and now, confusingly enough, you don't seem to find girls interesting, but suddenly you see one or another of the boys with different eyes.
Now what?
Note that basically ALL Christian denominations with aone or two exception tolerate homosexuals - they don't excommunicate you or don't take your confession or something. They are not ousting you.
Back to the Scouts - what are your options at this point? Just assume, that you like it at the Scouts, having been there half your life, and you have many friends there.
Can you answer that?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 09, 2013 06:31 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 18:33, 09 Feb 2013.
|
Unfortunately there are anti-theists and gay activist extremists call everyone who has a different opinion a bigot. They proclaim their own beliefs to be fact and condemn those who believe differently.
The boy scouts are privately funded. They are NOT funded by the taxpayers. 70% of the troops are funded by religious organizations. As a private organization they have a right to admit who they chose to admit and exclude who they chose to exclude.
It is ludicrous to say that the boy scouts should be forced to include people who do not meet the moral standards of the Boy Scout organization. Anti-theists don't get to the set the standards of the scouts. Gay activists don't get to set the moral standards of the Scouts.
If you don't like the moral standards of the Scouts, then by all means don't join the Scouts (you be a liar and oath breaker if you did) and don't donate to them. You could even ****gasp**** start your own "Rainbow Scouts" organization or whatever you chose to call it.
If your morals change while you are a Scout and you are no longer willing to comply with the moral code of the Scouts then get out of the organization.
Clicky
Quote:
About 70 percent of all Boy Scout troops are sponsored by faith-based organizations, with the Southern Baptists, Catholic Church, Lutheran Church, United Methodist Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints representing the most troops, according to Fox News.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 09, 2013 06:42 PM |
|
|
Well the link says also that the various church organizations sponsoring the scouts do not agree on the thing to do.
But not all church denominations are disturbed by the possible change.
The United Methodist Church, which sponsors nearly 11,000 troops, said the change would actually put the Boy Scouts more in line with their religious beliefs.
The United Methodist Book of Disciple clearly supports the rights and liberties for all persons, regardless of sexual orientation,” said Gilbert Hanke, of the General Commission on United Methodist Men, in a statement to Fox News. “These proposed changes are actually more consistent with the current Book of Discipline he said.
Some cacophony is going on interpreting scriptures?
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted February 09, 2013 06:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As a private organization they have a right to admit who they chose to admit and exclude who they chose to exclude.
Agreed, though I think it's too simple a way to set it up.
Like mentioned earlier, how do you know if a person is gay? It's not something really testable, and should be treated as a private thing.
Secondly, also mentioned earlier, what about people who first realize they're gay many years after their initial joining?
At least for private companies, while you can practically hire whoever you wants, firing someone is much more expensive if done at a whim. I don't know if the same applies for organisations where you've to pay to be a member.
Further more, while a private organisation should be allowed to decide over themselves, there're some important stuff to note in regard to the law.
E.g., if you want to start up a company and hire staff, you've to evaluate every candidate under equal terms. Otherwise you risk losing your licence to hire a staff, so you'll be a company of one. While there obviously do exist positions where traits which can't be chosen are of high importance, e.g. among actors where you might need a white character role, or maybe a male actor, if said trait however has no obvious relevance for the position, it's a violation of the law not to deal with every applicant equally. Not that it's very easy to prove if someone got discriminated against due to non-relevant stuff in regards to the job.
I am not aware if the same goes for groups where you pay for being a member.
Finally, most boy scout groups are lacking members, so they want as "many as possible". It's no good to have all the money in the world, if you don't have enough members, but you also need money to sustain the amount of members you want. Therefore it's not clear cut for these organizations what to do.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 09, 2013 06:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Some cacophony is going on interpreting scriptures?
There are some "liberal" "denominations" that want to be called by the name of Christ but who reject what the Bible teaches. The Bible says they "worship" in vain, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men rather than the Word of God.
____________
Revelation
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 09, 2013 07:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
moral standards
Wait, being gay is immoral now? O.o
We've sure done a lot of progress here...
Quote:
Like mentioned earlier, how do you know if a person is gay?
Show me a situation in a world where there's no legal gay discriination where it would be relevant to prove you're gay.
Quote:
what about people who first realize they're gay many years after their initial joining?
Well, that's also a non-issue if there is no legal discrimination.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 09, 2013 07:21 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 19:25, 09 Feb 2013.
|
Sure, I won't participate under that premise.
Quote:
for an organisation where you've to pay to be a member.
^
That's not discrimination since everybody has the same property rights to own money.
What's interesting with property rights, an UN human right, is that taxes defile it.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 10, 2013 10:28 AM |
|
|
Since my questions are not answered - and I had thought so -, maybe this next one will:
If we do not tolerate HUMAN gay bashing anymore - why would we tolerate a self-proclaimed god doing it?
Phrased differently: if we don't think that we should kill, outlaw or even discriminate gays, why would we worship a so-called god doing exactly that - and with the added twist that supposedly he is the one responsible for making them so?
And if we are at it - why would we tolerate this with organisations named after a guy who preached unconditional love? After all, this Christ guy, after which these organizations are named, MADE A POINT OF consorting or seeking company with the so-called sinners.
So the conclusion is, an organization calling itself CHRISTIAN, that is, after Jesus Christ, should not shunt ANYONE,otherwise it doesn't deserve the name.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 10, 2013 09:49 PM |
|
|
And if this point would have needed prove anyway, somehow no one seems to have to say anything at all anymore.
Which is probably just as well.
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted February 10, 2013 11:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Not sure why you find it so hard to consider the solution of just establishing a non-religious scout programme
Actually that makes perfect sense. If scout organizations are like some sort of private club and some are part of a religous context, you are right. I always thought of them as a nation-wide structured nature programme funded by everyone's taxes.
No they are not funded by your taxes in anyway and that is why they should be allowed to choose. You don't see white people joining all black groups nor do you see all girl schools with penis's wondering around. They are being bullied now to try and conform.... Ridiculous.
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted February 10, 2013 11:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No they are not funded by your taxes in anyway and that is why they should be allowed to choose.
But that's the easy part. How exactly are they going to decide who's gay and who isn't? While they're free to choose, calling someone gay while they're not can be considered slander.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 10, 2013 11:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No they are not funded by your taxes in anyway and that is why they should be allowed to choose. You don't see white people joining all black groups nor do you see all girl schools with penis's wondering around. They are being bullied now to try and conform.... Ridiculous.
They call themselves CHRISTIAN, for frag's sake. They shouldn't shunt ANYONE. I mean, that's the whole point of the frigging religion, right? Once they shunt "sinners", they are not CHRISTIAN anymore. They are just a bunch of misguided fools, who didn't understand the point of it.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 10, 2013 11:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Since my questions are not answered - and I had thought so -, maybe this next one will:
If we do not tolerate HUMAN gay bashing anymore - why would we tolerate a self-proclaimed god doing it?
Phrased differently: if we don't think that we should kill, outlaw or even discriminate gays, why would we worship a so-called god doing exactly that - and with the added twist that supposedly he is the one responsible for making them so?
And if we are at it - why would we tolerate this with organisations named after a guy who preached unconditional love? After all, this Christ guy, after which these organizations are named, MADE A POINT OF consorting or seeking company with the so-called sinners.
So the conclusion is, an organization calling itself CHRISTIAN, that is, after Jesus Christ, should not shunt ANYONE,otherwise it doesn't deserve the name.
I agree with your point of view but the thing is, they don't have to. It's their private space, they have the right to be theoretically wrong about their own religion too. I don't understand all the crying about "they call us bigots" though. You act like that and people will call you a bigot, you can't both have the cake and eat the cake.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 11, 2013 02:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Since my questions are not answered - and I had thought so -, maybe this next one will:
If we do not tolerate HUMAN gay bashing anymore - why would we tolerate a self-proclaimed god doing it?
God says what is sin and what is not. You frankly don't have to like it that God says gay sex is sin, sex with your best friend's wife is sin, sex with animals is sin or sex with children is sin. God setting standards is not "bashing." You however, are bashing God. Quite some nerve. In fact, atheists have nothing at all to base a moral decree on and you yourself have stated there is no such thing as right or wrong, good or evil. Yet you say God is wrong for declaring something to be sin. You are not consistent or logical with your statements.
Quote:
Phrased differently: if we don't think that we should kill, outlaw or even discriminate gays, why would we worship a so-called god doing exactly that - and with the added twist that supposedly he is the one responsible for making them so?
This happens to be God's universe and he gets to set the rules. You don't have to like it that God is the Judge of all. However, he is the only one qualified to judge all as he sees all and knows all, past, present, future, thoughts, and intentions. And he exists as both God and the [now glorified] man Jesus Christ.
You can continue to shake your fist at the heavens and judge God for being Judge of the Universe. But one wonders what qualifies you as judge of God and judge of God's church when you declare God is not qualified to be judge and the church is "bashing" if it says something is sin.
Quote:
And if we are at it - why would we tolerate this with organisations named after a guy who preached unconditional love? After all, this Christ guy, after which these organizations are named, MADE A POINT OF consorting or seeking company with the so-called sinners.
So the conclusion is, an organization calling itself CHRISTIAN, that is, after Jesus Christ, should not shunt ANYONE,otherwise it doesn't deserve the name.
Jesus did not hesitate to call sin sin. Jesus showed mercy on those who cried out for mercy but then said, "Go and sin no more." Jesus preached repentance of sin, not that "I'm ok, you're ok, we're all ok."
I certainly agree the church should not "shun" anyone and my church does not. But the church is to preach the Word of God and not pretend that sin is not sin. Preaching that something is sin is not "bashing" or hate. It is in fact love. The churches standing up and preaching the truth rather than watered down politically correct dogma are persecuted and are the ones who love people.
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 11, 2013 05:53 AM |
|
Edited by Shyranis at 12:38, 11 Feb 2013.
|
Quote:
No they are not funded by your taxes in anyway and that is why they should be allowed to choose. You don't see white people joining all black groups nor do you see all girl schools with penis's wondering around. They are being bullied now to try and conform.... Ridiculous.
But you DO no longer see private businesses with "no colored" signs or whites only washrooms. That was a change that the federal government had to make sadly.
I'm not for or against this particular issue (boyscout issue I mean), just pointing out that little factoid.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
| |
|
|
