Community Day backs away from BSA over its gay policy

[packsaddle]

Gern, do you like Monte Python?

"That's what being a Protestant's all about."

"...I can go down the road any time I want and walk into Harry's and hold my head up high and say in a loud, steady voice, 'Harry, I want you to sell me a condom. In fact, today, I think I'll have a French Tickler, for I am a Protestant.'"

"But, despite the attempts of Protestants to promote the idea of sex for pleasure, children continued to multiply everywhere."

 

As I remember, Mrs. Blackitt was anxious to get it on throughout this lengthy exchange. But Mr. Blackitt just didn't seem to think along the same lines, heh, heh, being a Protestant and all.

 

BTW, I get a charge out of this scene every graduation. When Elgar's music, 'Pomp and Circumstance' begins I am able to put the words of the Catholic dad's song to it:

"Every sperm is sacred.

Every sperm is great.

If a sperm is wasted,

God gets quite irate."

 

and so on...works really well. Plus it brings a smile every time and helps pass the time for those long, boring speeches.

[evmori]

Your point, Gern, has nothing to do with your marital status!

[packsaddle]

Oh ED!!!! And I was having such fun.

The fact is, if absolutely irrefutable evidence came along proving that homosexuality is purely biological and without even a small sliver of choice, many people would still hate and condemn gays as immoral or something. Same as they hate and condemn so many other people just because they're different.

 

On the other hand, if evidence was produced that showed unequivocally that homosexuality is PURELY a matter of choice and that biology had almost nothing to do with it, this fact would not deter gays from continuing to seek a status with rights equal to everyone else.

 

The 'choice' question is a red herring that just postpones the issue for both sides because we know that prejudice and hate are going to keep the conflict going NO MATTER WHAT. And we seem to like this for some reason, because we DO it for some reason (usually based on biblical interpretation).

 

So it won't matter for you one way or the other. Happy?

 

[Aquila]

Feelings are just that... feelings. It's the ACTIONS that are the problem.

 

Pack, I'm sure there is both a nature and a nurture component to homosexuality -- that does not excuse it. In the same way that there is a genetic component to rage, it is what's done with that predisposition that matters.

 

I don't hate those practicing homosexuality, though I confess to being curious as to how long it was going to take for someone to bring out the buzz words. The actions disgust me, but it is compassion that I feel for the people caught up in that lifestyle. I don't hate junkies, prostitutes, thieves, liars, or the sexually promiscuous either. But I'm not going to purposefully expose my children to them, or condone their lifestyle.

[packsaddle]

Aquila, I was aware of the so-called "rage syndrome" in dogs (mostly Cocker Spaniels) but please expand on the genetics of rage in humans for me. I'm curious. Is it a trait controlled by single or multiple alleles? Or is it more complex than that, maybe influenced by temporary expression during development?

 

So which ones were the "buzz words"? Did you object to all of them or just one in particular? And what do you mean by "buzz word" anyway? Is this a way to dismiss something unpleasant without further thought? Just asking.

[Aquila]

There are literally tens of thousands of papers about the genetic component of extreme violence. The search engine is your friend.

 

As far as buzzwords, to adjudge actions as unacceptable is not to hate a person. But by throwing out "hate" and "prejudice" (and other buzzwords), the discussion changes to an offensive/defensive posturing rather than the issue of behavior.

 

The bottom line is that the BSA is highly unlikely to ever change their stance on this policy, and those who strongly disagree with it would probably be better served in an organization like Big Brothers or the Boys and Girls Club.

[packsaddle]

Aquila,

The term 'hate' certainly does apply to certain other individuals who also adjudge actions by gays as unacceptable and disgusting. It may not apply to you, in particular, but then I used the term in a general sense. Why are you so sensitive to it? Or do you not agree that there are people who hate gays? Do you not also agree that there are people who are likewise prejudiced?

 

If I am to address the problems that gays suffer at the hands of people who are not as 'compassionate' as you, why should I not use the terms that describe those 'less compassionate' interactions accurately?

 

You may not intend to hurt anyone. But remember that in the spectrum of thought and actions, those who are prejudiced - who do hurt - who do hate...are just farther out in the distribution beyond you. In order to call to those people from where I am, I must call past you as well.

[Beavah]

Yah, one can also be prejudiced in favor of gays, eh? And one can be a "religiophobe" expressin' "hate" against folks of faith, and accusin' 'em of all kinds of things. A few of which may be somewhat true, in da same way that many-partner promiscuity in the gay male community is somewhat true.

 

Prejudice and hate cut both ways, packsaddle. Best to stay away from that kind of loaded language, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[tjhammer]

Yah, one can also be prejudiced in favor of gays, eh?

I suppose if someone was saying "all gays are the best kinds of citizens, and incapable of being immoral", then yeah. But that's just dumb... sure sounds goofy when the prejudice is inverted to the same degree, huh?

 

 

 

 

[packsaddle]

TJ beat me to part of it.

I'm a little surprised at the reluctance I'm reading on the part of others. We readily point to racial prejudice and racial hate. The fact that there also exists religious hate and prejudice was just mentioned. Why shy away from pointing to similar prejudice and hate toward gays?

If those terms, 'prejudice' and 'hate', are as negative and powerful as claimed, then I would think it should be important for them to be accurately applied to those actions and persons to whom they apply.

 

Unless...my questions have not been answered yet...do you not agree that there are people who hate gays? Do you not also agree that there are people who are likewise prejudiced against gays? These questions can be answered in two words, one each...yes or no.

If I have been inaccurate in some way, then by all means tell me so I can learn. Otherwise, why be timid? It seems uncharacteristic...'brave', you know....

[Beavah]

Yeh can find some people who are prejudiced about anything. Yeh can find a few people who can be put in situations where they really express hatred. So "yes" and "yes."

 

But from readin' what you're writin', yer really tryin' to paint with a much broader brush, eh? You're not sayin' that there's some people who have prejudice, or a few people who hate. Yeh seem to be implyin' that everyone with an opinion about not according homosexuality protected class status must be both prejudiced and hateful.

 

All public policy necessarily treats with groups, and inevitably creates injustice with respect to individuals. Make a law about affirmative action, inadvertently give preference to a wealthy black man over a poor white Appalachian farmer. Make a law about taxing estates, inadvertently take the family farm away from a family where their land is their only real asset.

 

The fact that policy must necessarily treat with groups doesn't mean all discussion of public policy involves prejudice or hate. And in that context, not all judgment is pre-judgment. It isn't prejudice or hate to suggest that affirmative action may not be good public policy. It isn't prejudice or hate against farmers to suggest we still need an estate tax. It isn't prejudice or hate against sexually active folks for Catholics to have a celibate priesthood.

 

But it might be prejudice and hate for someone to claim that folks who adhere to certain religious values must be prejudiced, hateful, and interested in conflict.

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle]

Get out your specs, Beavah, I never wrote that "everyone with an opinion about not according homosexuality protected class status must be both prejudiced and hateful."

That you think I imply the above when I have not, in fact, stated it is remarkable considering the context of your response.

[DanKroh]

41% of homosexuals in a recent study reported being the victim of a hate crime at some point in their life after age 16.

 

That's more than "a few people" expressing their hatred. Even if we cut that statistic in half, it's still quite a bit of hatred out there.

 

So to dismiss the idea of homophobia and hatred against gays as politically correct "buzzwords" is to deny the reality of their situation. And I'm sorry, but to say that judging homosexuals that you have never met as "immoral" isn't necessarily prejudice is just crap.

 

At what point does prejudice codified by religious belief get a pass because it's a sacred religious belief? When it's against a person's race? The Mormons tried that, didn't get them very accepted. When it's against women? Various religious groups are still getting away with that one. When it's against another religion? Well, lots of people seem more than happy to condemn fundamentalist Islam for its prejudice against Christians. But wait, when it's against gays? Oh, can't touch that, it's a sacred religious belief, and if you call it prejudice, that just makes you a religiophobe.

 

At what point are we allowed to call a belief that is supposedly based on religion to be just plain wrong?

[Beavah]

At what point are we allowed to call a belief that is supposedly based on religion to be just plain wrong?

 

You're allowed.

 

Just a question of what yeh want to achieve, eh?

 

Callin' someone else's fundamental belief hateful is a good way to start conflict and war, eh? Is that what you want to achieve?

 

Most folks who aren't religiophobic recognize that the way to change people's fundamental belief isn't to argue with 'em and call them wicked. It's to convert them. To present a whole system of thought and community and support so that they voluntarily change their fundamental belief.

 

Da question is whether the religiophobes have such a thing, eh? Or whether the coherence of their thought is limited to rejecting the beliefs of others, rather than building something positive of their own.

 

Beavah

 

[DanKroh]

"Most folks who aren't religiophobic recognize that the way to change people's fundamental belief isn't to argue with 'em and call them wicked. It's to convert them. To present a whole system of thought and community and support so that they voluntarily change their fundamental belief.

 

Da question is whether the religiophobes have such a thing, eh?"

 

Except a lot of the folks arguing these days that religious prejudice against gays is wrong are themselves religious people (does that still make them religiophobes?). So yeah, I would think they have such a thing... it's called a whole bunch of non-fundamentalist Christian denominations, most of conservative and reformed Judaism, and a smattering of religions that don't fall into the JCI continuum.

 

When the Mormons tried to codify racism as religious doctrine, pressure brought to bear by the government and society was enough to make them change that doctrine (at least, publically). Does that make everyone else who thought that doctrine was wrong a religiophobe?

 

"Callin' someone else's fundamental belief hateful is a good way to start conflict and war, eh? Is that what you want to achieve?"

 

That conflict was started long ago, the first time that anyone mistreated, or beat up, or even killed a homosexual and then justified it with a religious belief (of any stripe). Sorry, I must have missed all those news stories of gays killing people for their religious beliefs; but the gays must have obviously "started" this by calling those religious folks "hateful", right?