Is Obama re-election and 4 states passage of equal marriage a membership mandate for BSA?

[scoutingagain]

"Should there still be a place for diversity in matters of opinion? Should we not still have a place in American society for the Nelsons, Reeds(?)(AKA Stones) and Cleavers? "

 

Of course. Folks just need to recognize in the future this is likely to be a minority opinion. One recent poll of voting results I saw that in 2000 80% of the vote was made up of caucasians. In 2012, the white voters accounted for only 50 - 55% of the vote. This year, I believe more non-white babies were born than white babies. The future of the country and electorate is much more racially and culturally diverse than it's been in the past. Neither bad nor good, just reality.

 

Any candidate expecting to win an election for national office that ignores or disparges the concerns of what used to be minorities is going to have a tough time winning.

 

SA

 

 

[moosetracker]

AZMike :Should there still be a place for diversity in matters of opinion? Should we not still have a place in American society for the Nelsons, Reeds(?) and Cleavers?

 

No one said the Nelsons, Reeds, or Cleavers, are not welcome.. The problem was in stating you were going to enact laws that forced everyone to become Nelsons, Reeds, or Cleavers, because you could not accept a society that was more diverse then this narrow framework.. There are too many families that do not fit into this mold, and they don't like being told they are not wanted, and must change to conform for someone elses comfort level, or self-deport (or at least their parents or grandparents must.)

 

Nor can you insist that only the Nelsons, Reeds and Cleavers, get the right to vote in this country and try to suppress the vote of those who do not fit your mold of traditionalism.

[CalicoPenn]

"Should there still be a place for diversity in matters of opinion? Should we not still have a place in American society for the Nelsons, Reeds(?)(AKA Stones) and Cleavers? "

 

I'd like to point out that an assumption is being made that the Nelsons, Stones and Cleavers would be in agreement with the far right when it comes to social issues. I remember watching all these shows in re-runs whenever I was home sick from school - and while it might be argued that they were GOP leaning, it would have been the GOP of the 50's and 60's - the ones that have been turned out by the right wing revolution. My recollection of these shows, and I'll include Hazel, the Brady Bunch, and the Cosby Show as part of that wholesome family mileu, is that the parents were generally pretty forgiving and tolerant - I could just as easily see them supporting a local option as supporting a national ban. Given the characters portrayed, I'd actually be less surprised if they would have supported a local option and more surprised if they supported a ban.

 

 

 

 

[AZMike]

I'm quite okay with being part of a niche, smaller social group.

 

The reference to "the Nelsons, Reeds(?)(AKA Stones) and Cleavers (Beaver, not Eldridge)" referred to traditional moral codes, not the whiteness of their skins.

 

(And it should be noted that the real-life Donna Reed was quite the lefty.)

 

I would also note that the argument that homosexual marriage in no way detracts from heterosexual marriage, while fallacious, applies to the diversity of opinion represented by a group that holds to traditional values. Such a private group (the BSA) does not detract from those who choose to elevate a civil union based on sodomy or tribadism to an all-important civic imperative.

 

Should homosexuals be able to live together and call the relationship anything they want? I think the state has little say in the matter, and if it doesn't affect me, I probably wouldn't care.

 

Should homosexual couples be given equal access to adoptions? It does then affect a third party, so yes, the matter does begin to become a matter which I as a plankholder in the government can express concern. There is research on both sides of the issue that points to (variously) more and less hospitable environments for children in such relationships. The issue should thus be open to examination without cries of discrimination.

 

Should a religious institution, or a charity established because of a denomination's religious requirements for charity, be required to adopt children to homosexual couples despite the religious condemnation of homosexual activities? Clearly, this is a conflict between freedom of religion and a claimed right of association. If the churches close the institutions rather than compromise their beliefs, many people who would have had access to those institutions suffer. Thus, the state's actions in my view were a moral wrong.

 

The popularity or lack of same for a new right to homosexual marriage is meaningless, or should be, in terms of the morality of such actions. Morality is not a popularity contest.(This message has been edited by AZMike)

[AZMike]

"May have been the losing side, still not convinced it was the wrong one."