Merlyn_LeRoy

SeattlePioneer writes: Thaaats right. You have just proved that legal and political decisions have no necessary relationship to the facts or reality. And since the argument over gay marriage is only concerned with legal recognition, and not religious or other types of recognition, you have just admitted that legal decisions are the only ones that matter in this case. I suppose the Supreme Court deserves a measure of credit for describing their decisions as "opinions." Unlike some who pretend to speak for gods?

SeattlePioneer writes: If the Supreme Court deemed a horse to have three legs, how many legs would a horse have? A: Legally, three, just as marijuana is (legally) classified as a narcotic, even though it isn't a narcotic. A more pertinent question would be: Q: If the supreme court says two men or two women have a right to get married, what kind of relationship would such couples have? A: Legally, they would be married and be each other's spouses.

That's a pretty ridiculous perspective skeptic; that guy says: There is already a Supreme Court ruling that the Boy Scouts (and by extension any organization) get to decide who their members are, and yet these activists want to keep trying to break that law and overturn it. Why? First, if a supreme court decision is actually overturned, no law has been broken; the supreme court has overturned its own earlier decisions many times, sometimes as soon as three years later. Second, what the activists are trying to do is get the BSA to change its policies, which is perfectly legal also.

I don't know about you guys, but I live in the USA, where marriage was stated to be a right in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, which also cited Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942). Anyone who wants to argue that marriage isn't a right isn't dealing with reality.

Peregrinator writes: So, Merlyn, you believe that a mark of good character is to assume the worst about people? No, but at this point it's only prudent to assume the worst about the BSA. They've lied to get HUD grants, they deceived public schools into signing illegal charters, they have unwritten, vague membership requirements that are selectively enforced, and they try to sweep molestation accusations under the rug. In other words, rather than assume that the policy is being applied appropriately in this case because the young man is (a) an open homosexual, whatever that might mean for someone of his age, and (b) disagrees with the Scout Oath, the taking of which is necessary for membership, you've chosen to assume that the Scoutmaster in question, and the organization of which he is a part, are acting in a capricious and arbitrary manner. Why are you assuming he isn't being treated arbitrarily? Was he kicked out as soon as he told his scoutmaster he was gay? Apparently not. Was he kicked out some time later? Yes. Was he kicked out for something he did at about that time? Apparently not; he was kicked out for being gay. And exactly how does he "disagree with the Scout Oath"? As I pointed out, maybe he only disagrees with the "duty to god" policy while being a believer himself. If he can get kicked out for that, a number of people in this forum should be kicked out. And the quote from the BSA spokesman doesn't cite that as the reason for revoking his membership, only his sexual orientation. So why are you assuming the worst for this scout?

So you would rather assume that he's being denied something arbitrarily? Yes. From what I can tell from the story, the only reason he's being kicked out is because he told his scoutmaster he's gay, which changed him from a closeted homosexual (ok for membership) to an "avowed" homosexual (not ok for membership). However, the BSA has never explained what qualifies as "avowed", and since he wasn't kicked out right away (something I've always advocated -- as soon as a youth indicates he doesn't meet the membership requirements, kick him out), as far as he could tell, he was still a member and worked on his Eagle. Kicking him out some time later seems pretty arbitrary to me. Is that indicative of good character on your part? Yes.

Peregrinator writes: Merlyn, do you believe it is a mark of good character to allow someone to retain membership in a private organization when he does not meet the membership requirements? Exactly which requirements? Being gay? Supposedly, gay youth are allowed. Or maybe not. Or not, if they're "avowed". What do the membership requirements say? Oh, nothing about being gay (or not being gay) at all. Does he not meet the BSA's religious requirements? The story quotes a BSA national spokesman as saying Recently, a Scout proactively notified his unit leadership and Eagle Scout Counselor that he does not agree to Scouting's principle of "Duty to God" and does not meet Scouting's membership standard on sexual orientation but there's nothing else saying how he disagrees with scouting's principle of "duty to god". It could be he's a god-believer but he disagrees with the policy.

You forgot the part about throwing him out, qwazse. You know, the men and women of good character throwing him out for not belonging. You forgot that part.

Peregrinator, AZ's original statement of "Merlyn is of course welcome to send Lowe's a nasty letter for not supporting his gay hobby-horse d'jour, and demanding that they cease and desist" suggests that I would "demand that they cease and desist" doing something that's perfectly legal. Now, you might not consider that an insult but I do.

But whether or not one actually is insulted is an objective matter Nope.

Good old fearmongering from the RCC. Here's a bit you omitted: "Gay marriage would herald a complete breakdown in society" Yeah, the Netherlands are just like Mad Max now, and all because they legalized gay marriage over a decade ago. Oh wait, they aren't. It's not too smart to take advice from an organization that criminally conspired to cover up child abuse. Just sayin'.

"Conform to reality" doesn't include subjective matters like being insulted. Quit whining.

Sentinel947 writes: Merlyn: Just because you are insulted, doesn't make you right. I didn't say being insulted made me right. Peregrinator writes: Peregrinator, you don't get to decide if I've been insulted; I do. You may be offended but it does not follow that you were insulted. Like I said, you don't get to decide if I've been insulted; I do. I find it interesting that that was the one part of my post to which you responded. That suggests to me that you're not interested in scouting or working with youth. Well, for your information, for the last few months I have been working with about 2 dozen people, most in early 20s but a few under 18 (including one lesbian), about 1/3 of whom have various mental disorders (autism/aspergers/retrograde amnesia/bipolar+OCD/ADHD/IED/chronic depression/etc) on a visual novel about students with mental disorders, but since it also includes hardcore cartoon sex, I didn't think you'd be interested.

Peregrinator, you don't get to decide if I've been insulted; I do.

AZMike writes: Merlyn is of course welcome to send Lowe's a nasty letter for not supporting his gay hobby-horse d'jour, and demanding that they cease and desist. AZMike does of course feel welcome to insult me, because he's a member of the BSA, and I'm a second-class citizen according to the BSA.

you want to punish Intel because they used to give money to the BSA. Private company stops giving $$$ to private organization. Private individual responds by complaining to private organization and, when that doesn't work, giving his business to private company's competitors. And private companies B, C, and D sees this happen and quietly decide to never start donating to private organization in the first place. Good plan.

Hey AZMike, you may not have heard, but Christianity also condemns homosexuality. Maybe Intel shouldn't donate to any Christian organizations, either. Of course, you weren't bothered by any of this when Intel gave the BSA money, you're only pissed off because they stopped. In effect, you want to punish Intel because they used to give money to the BSA.

Just not the BSA's style of scouting. Oh, and your "religious discrimination" whining is ridiculous. It's about the BSA's discrimination.

http://www.advocate.com/business/2012/09/21/intel-ends-donations-boy-scouts-due-discriminatory-policies

BadenP hypocritically whines: Using terms like moron and idiot, etc does nothing to boost or support your arguments. But "master baiter" is just fine, eh? Hypocrite. By the way, I don't use insults to "support my arguments," I use them as insults. Trying to use insults to support an argument is an invalid ad hominem argument. By the way, unnamed moderator, if you're going to remove my "moron" and "idiot" insults, remove BadenP's "master baiter" baiting.

Beavah babbles: So juries of our peers are lynch mobs to you, eh? No, People with no authority deciding to ignore possible child rape. SeattlePioneer writes: Merlyn prefers to talk about incidents that happened 20-40 years ago And how Brad Allen ignored allegations of molestation in the mid 1990s and became the chief scout of the Seattle council from 2006-2010, and then area director for Area Two of the Western Region (which, as far as I can tell, he remains to this day). That's not 20-40 years ago, that's someone STILL in the BSA. And I questioned why this guy was still in the BSA back in 2007. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Beavah disingenuously writes: Amateurs shouldn't be making arbitrary judgements over possible felonies like child rape. Duh. By amateurs, yeh mean da folks who serve on juries? It seems to me that in our system, we allow our fellow citizens to make judgments about such things in every case. Duh. I don't mean lynch mobs. If yeh wait for da legal system to convict, and then after conviction if yeh expect da legal system to keep da world safe from the predator for the rest of his (or her) life, you're goin' to see a couple orders of magnitude more abuse. So why is it so much better to cover up abuse in the first place, and let abuse happen a lot longer? PS: by the way, fred8033, why is it "shame on me" for reporting on child rape and BSA coverups? Shoot the messenger much? (This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy) (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

BadenP whines: I really do not understand the perverse pleasure Merlyn seems to get with his attacks on the BSA I know, it's a lot better to ignore problems, because they always go away by themselves. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Beavah writes: Yes, they really are. They have to follow actual rules. No, they're really not. They are every bit as susceptible to bias and cronyism as anybody else You're omitting all the legal protections, like chain of evidence, appeals, etc. Amateurs shouldn't be making arbitrary judgements over possible felonies like child rape. Duh.

Beavah writes: Yeah, that's why it's important to get the legal system involved instead of just having amateurs make arbitrary judgements. Yah, because da "professionals" in the legal system are so much better at it, eh? Yes, they really are. They have to follow actual rules.