In truth, vaguely; when and where I spent my years of youth, there were no such issues such as racism and/or segregation.
Trust me. There was racism where you grew up. Segregation, perhaps not. But racism is so far from eliminated I would be very surprised if you lived in the paradise of racial equity and tolerance.
This thread isn't about Mithraism, Christmas, Christianity being a rip-off, etc.
No, but it might be about religion hijacking a human concept and trying to make it sacred and unchangeable. You know, so we don't allow blacks and whites to marry and so women remain property in marriage and we keep divorce outlawed. Marriage is a sacred institution and cannot be changed or God is gonna get super pissed and, like, strangle a bunch of kittens.
I don't see what's inconclusive about them. Sure, there's no gay gene in the strict single sense. But science has unequivocably accepted that there is a genetic component to homosexuality. How else do you explain that when the only thing that changes is genetics there is a change in the incidence of homosexuality?
Whether they are born gay or they are made gay doesn't really matter, because in the end they are just as gay and it can't be changed or wished away by sending them to Jesus camp.
I'm of the opinion that homosexuality is a complicated phenomenon, causually speaking. There are people who experience the same things said to "cause" people to be gay - distant or absent fathers, overbearing mothers, sexual abuse, older male siblings - and are straight as can be. Likewise there are gays who experience none of these things. While certain factors in genetics and environment can be said to influence things, there really is no cause for being gay in a clear cut and simple way.
Forcing a church to marry the two is a different matter, entirely. If that were to happen, then that' the only time I would balk at the idea.
You know, I would say that should never happen. Really I would like to say that. And it probably never will happen.
But churches should be forced to marry gays. They are publicly funded with their special tax exempt status and if they are willing to relinquish this special status, they should be exempt and can do whatever they want. Just like the boy scouts, who are given a large swath of federal fuinding and preferential treatment, should be required to follow federal non-discrimination laws.
Thank you much, that was quite interesting. I always thought the "problem" with humanity evolving towards greater percentages of homosexuality makes little sense with how survival of the fittest works...
Quote from wamyc »
But churches should be forced to marry gays. They are publicly funded with their special tax exempt status and if they are willing to relinquish this special status, they should be exempt and can do whatever they want. Just like the boy scouts, who are given a large swath of federal fuinding and preferential treatment, should be required to follow federal non-discrimination laws.
Trust me. I'm an Eagle Scout, and there is absolutely no way the BSA will allow for homosexuals to join in scouts any time soon. For Christ's sake, they don't even let girls join, like almost every other friggin' country on EARTH with a Scouting association does. It's quite ridiculous that we still have a sexually segregated Scouting association, where the boys go out on hikes and actually do stuff***, while the girls stay at home and sell cookies. What is this, the fifties?
The first thing I was asked in my Eagle Board of Review was "Do you have any doubts about your sexual orientation?" and "Do you believe in a supreme being or beings?"
The Boy Scouts, while a fantastic organization that truly helped me grow up and become a honorable citizen, has a long trail in front of them before they make it into the 21st century.
*** I'm not entirely sure if this is how the Girl Scouts is in most of the country, but this has been the gist of my experiences with it. I'd love to know it if the GS were more active than I am led to believe.
You know, I would say that should never happen. Really I would like to say that. And it probably never will happen.
But churches should be forced to marry gays. They are publicly funded with their special tax exempt status and if they are willing to relinquish this special status, they should be exempt and can do whatever they want. Just like the boy scouts, who are given a large swath of federal fuinding and preferential treatment, should be required to follow federal non-discrimination laws.
No, to force them to marry someone they spiritually believe shouldn't be married would basically stomp on their freedom of religion.
Trust me. I'm an Eagle Scout, and there is absolutely no way the BSA will allow for homosexuals to join in scouts. For Christ's sake, they don't even let girls join, like almost every other friggin' country on EARTH with a Scouting association does.
The first thing I was asked in my Eagle Board of Review was "Do you have any doubts about your sexual orientation?" and "Do you believe in a supreme being or beings?"
The Boy Scouts, while a fantastic organization that truly helped me grow up and become a honorable citizen, has a long trail in front of them before they make it into the 21st century.
You can probably tell us more about this than I, but from what I've been able to gather, the Scouts were basically hijacked by the religious right (in fact, I want to say the Mormons) in the '80s.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No, to force them to marry someone they spiritually believe shouldn't be married would basically stomp on their freedom of religion.
Which they are free to have when they refuse the special tax-exempt status of governmental support. You are free to worship anything and any how - just don't expect my tax dollars to treat you special for doing so.
@ Dark Knight: Yes, I realise the scouts will never do it of thier own will. But they should. They are very specially treated by the government and recieve signifigant federal funding. Yet they are allowed to discriminate against women, atheists and homosexuals. I was a scout too, and it's a great organization (luckily I was closeted and a theist at the time). But yes, they are stuck in the fifties and are creedist and sexist and heteronormativists bastards when it comes down to it.
You can probably tell us more about this than I, but from what I've been able to gather, the Scouts were basically hijacked by the religious right (in fact, I want to say the Mormons) in the '80s.
Yes, the religious right made the scouts their pet project in the 80's jsut like they are making gay marriage their thing today.
This makes me really start to dislike the Mormons more specifically.
No, the heterosexual nature of marriage predates Christianity. The Greeks had institutions of homosexual unions (often pederastic and pedagogical) on top of what we call "marriage", and they certainly recognized the difference between the two. In Spartan custom, for instance, the older partner was expected to help the younger find a wife. And to the best of my knowledge, nowhere was either partner treated as a "wife". They had very strongly defined gender roles to be filled in a heterosexual marriage, and very strongly defined, ah, sexual-position roles to be filled in a homosexual union, but these were different sets of roles. A woman, for instance, would probably not be found on the battlefield, but both dominant and submissive men did the same general-male things, including fighting. The most famous instance of this is of course the Golden Band of Thebes. The sexual-position roles existed within the male gender role.
In fact, funny story: The Iliad was composed before this Classical conception of homosexual roles crystallized, which means that the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus contains what Classical scholars saw as conflicting cues. But so strong was their cultural investment in these cues that the debate was not, as it is today, on whether the two warriors were lovers, but rather which one was the bottom. (As I recall, the conventional wisdom, interestingly enough, was the peerless Achilles - he was younger.)
Not that any of this means squat in a society with very different - and much, much looser - expectations about the roles to be filled in a marriage. My opinion, basically, if these expectations have blurred enough that it isn't just plain incoherent to talk about gay marriage, then the definition of marriage already encompasses this form of relationship.
Oh snapped.
I'll back away from this thread, give this much thought, and try to riposte something without labouring the point. Thanks for that. =)
You can probably tell us more about this than I, but from what I've been able to gather, the Scouts were basically hijacked by the religious right (in fact, I want to say the Mormons) in the '80s.
Blinky, you quoted the wrong person. ;p
By virtue, I can't join BS(A).
Quote from waymc »
Trust me.
I should be a little more knowledgeable about where I've been and lived; that being said, perhaps I am a little naive.
There was racism where you grew up. Segregation, perhaps not. But racism is so far from eliminated I would be very surprised if you lived in the paradise of racial equity and tolerance.
Funny fact; there actually were instances of segregation in the history of the place. The 'natives inhabitants' weren't allowed to ride with whites on public transport.
So... I guess you're right; conditionally so, though.
I don't see what's inconclusive about them. Sure, there's no gay gene in the strict single sense. But science has unequivocably accepted that there is a genetic component to homosexuality.
Uh, so, you're case is that, in any given human's genotype, there is nothing biochemical, genetic, that governs one's sexual orientation or preference?
How else do you explain that when the only thing that changes is genetics there is a change in the incidence of homosexuality?
Yeah. That's a form of segregation and I would think failing to identify that as racist is exremely naive. Most people who claim to have not experienced racism or see that it's an issue are just not aware of it. Hence my confidence in doubting your statement that you grew up in a racism-free zone.
No, I'm serious. The level of racism will nigh-zilch, if not zilch itself.
There are other forms of discriminatory behaviour, though; but, what's your point, in reference to this thread?
Sure, I am conditionally right. The condition being the fact that you grew up somewhere racism was an issue.
If you want to call that "conditionally right."
Uh, perhaps about a hundred years ago? Definitely not now or any time in the past twenty years.
No, my point, there for the reading, is that there is no single clear gay gene. My point is that there are a variety of genetic and environmental contributors.
Well, isn't most everything so, too?
Right.
It was simply a proferred possibility.
What an elegant solution. There is a spontaneous mutation in about 5-10% of the population that just happens to have the same effect in all the people.
What, oh?
Is this a sudden change in the population of the human species. I beg my pardon, but what was the time-frame?
So much for mutaitons being rare and random. Now they are common and uniform.
You can probably tell us more about this than I, but from what I've been able to gather, the Scouts were basically hijacked by the religious right (in fact, I want to say the Mormons) in the '80s.
I think you meant to quote me....
Ummm, they never told us anything about that, nor did I have that impression really. However, I understand that to be the case generally speaking on a national level. Keep in mind that my troop was centered in one of the most liberal areas of Rhode Island.
The adults in my troop were quite conservative, but they never imposed such beliefs on us youngins. They taught us respect for the flag and such, which is as close to a right wing thing that I ever found (which I think is pretty centrist).
The adults in my troop were actually quite accepting of my opinion. In my Eagle Board, they asked me if there were anything that I would change about scouts, and I said that I would have homosexual and atheistic scouts not be discriminated against, and I would integrate the BSA and the Girl Scouts. I said that I believe a gay atheist who follows the 12 points of the Scout Law embodies the spirit of the Eagle Scout more than some straight Christian who does not.
Some adult leaders were pissed when I said that. Most, however, nodded and simply said "Well, we'll see, won't we?".
My troop is awesome.
EDIT: Yes, I realize that the 12th point in the Scout Law is that a Scout is reverent. I told them that this is the most random and out of place point, in my opinion. The law is about service to your country, as is Scouts, and this whole God business seems so disposable. I learned so much from Scouts, and in my entire thirteen years in the program I spent maybe three hours talking about religion. In fact, I probably spent more time in my Eagle Board talking about religion than in the entirety of my scouting career, pointing out just how unimportant it is.
I said that there are a couple of R words that could replace Reverent more appropriately, like Respectful or Responsible. Those are more in tune with the rest of the Scout Law IMO.
I should be a little more knowledgeable about where I've been and lived; that being said, perhaps I am a little naive.
Funny fact; there actually were instances of segregation in the history of the place. The 'natives inhabitants' weren't allowed to ride with whites on public transport.
Yeah. That's a form of segregation and I would think failing to identify that as racist is exremely naive. Most people who claim to have not experienced racism or see that it's an issue are just not aware of it. Hence my confidence in doubting your statement that you grew up in a racism-free zone.
Uh, so, you're case is that, in any given human's genotype, there is nothing biochemical, genetic, that governs one's sexual orientation or preference?
No, my point, there for the reading, is that there is no single clear gay gene. My point is that there are a variety of genetic and environmental contributors.
Right. What an elegant solution. There is a spontaneous mutation in about 5-10% of the population that just happens to have the same effect in all the people. So much for mutaitons being rare and random. Now they are common and uniform.
Role models need not be parents and having two fathers does not mean you don't/can't have a female role model in your life. An aunt, a teacher, a group leader, etc.
This is a parents job...not that of other people. If the parents are unable to provide the simple tasks such as being a good role model for their kids...then they have failed as parents. What you are suggesting is village raising.
Since you're not really addressing the argument I can only restate what I already said. Marriage (or more precisely, it's fiscal consequences) is a form of a unwritten deal between the state and the married couple based on reinforcing a standard human behavior.
I would hardly call it an 'unwritten' deal when there are written laws to enforce it.
People have children. To have children a couple of opposite sex is required. It it beneficiary for the child to have the couple stay together for the duration of upbringing. For that purpose the state is providing incentives for them to stay together in exchange for formalizing the relation between them.
This deal takes into account that a certain amount of couple can't or won't have children. Since it's such a wide blanket rule it has to assume there will be flukes. Homosexual couples are not flukes. They naturally can't have children and, as such, can be covered by the, ahem, blanket rule.
Couples who are known to be infertile or past child-bearing age are also not flukes. Married couples who use contraception to avoid having children are also not flukes. They reap the benefits of the 'unwritten deal' but never intend to honour their side of it. One could say that they are defrauding the system.
The issue is that you cannot write laws that are intenteded to promote one type of behaviour but then let things slide for people you like. That's called corruption.
If you enact a "no parking on Main Street" law but then do not enforce it against the members of the mayor's church, you have essentially enacted a "reserved parking for members of the mayor's church" law.
The intent of a law becomes irrelevant if you never intend to enforce that intent.
Using another analogy: if you give people $10 a month not to park in a certain area but then do not take the money away from people who still part there, you have essentially created a free $10 handout.
Wow, we've been talking a lot about this issue lately, it seems. Many likely already know my stance on this, but I'll briefly explain it here for clarity's sake:
Yes, gay marriage should most definitely and obviously be legal. Despite the rather dark history of underground gay society in the mid-20th century which was defined largely by promiscuity, binge drinking, and drug abuse, much has changed since then. Homosexuals are far more integrated now into mainstream America, which has been of great benefit.
Homosexuals are just as capable of forming committed, long-term relationships as heterosexuals, and through adoption, offer nearly the same benefits to society through marriage as do mixed-sex couples. They cannot choose who they are attracted to anymore than straight people can, and they have the same broad range of feelings including physical and emotional attraction.
The vast majority of arguments against gay marriage, and against homosexuality in general, are deeply emotional and religious in nature, and as such tend to be irrational. They seek to justify base, gut feelings that have no real rational justification (call it the "that's just wrong" knee-jerk reaction).
Dark_Knight: That's a very interesting take on the BSA and GSA. I too am an Eagle Scout and cherish my years invested in the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts. I am much more troubled by the proliferation of pro-religion and anti-gay ideology into the core belief system of the Scouts than the gender segregation, though I fear that preference is simply personal bias.
I have heard innumerable stories about how dysfunctional an organization the Girl Scouts of America are, and have also spoken with more than a few college-aged girls that have told me that they joined the Girl Scouts but hated it, and couldn't wait until their 14th birthday, when they would be allowed to join a co-ed Venturing crew, where they actually DID STUFF, as you so eloquently put it :-P
Without going off-topic too much, I have just 2 more comments about the Scouts:
- In at least some other countries, Scouting organizations are segregated along sectarian lines, as they are in Ireland.
- Does anyone know if it's true that the Mormon Church has a large influence on the BSA, and has since the 80s? If so, between that and the anti-Prop8 funding, I'm beginning to have a major problem with the Mormon Church.
EDIT: Yes, I realize that the 12th point in the Scout Law is that a Scout is reverent. I told them that this is the most random and out of place point, in my opinion. The law is about service to your country, as is Scouts, and this whole God business seems so disposable. I learned so much from Scouts, and in my entire thirteen years in the program I spent maybe three hours talking about religion. In fact, I probably spent more time in my Eagle Board talking about religion than in the entirety of my scouting career, pointing out just how unimportant it is.
I said that there are a couple of R words that could replace Reverent more appropriately, like Respectful or Responsible. Those are more in tune with the rest of the Scout Law IMO.
My troop has always interpreted the twelfth law as respectful. This works for situations like flag ceremonies and other such formal occasions that require an attitude of utmost respect.
I simply think the word reverent has a more powerful message behind it. Yes, I'm sure that some troops interpret it as reverence to God, but that doesn't mean that it invalidates the law at all.
It is unwritten because nowhere in marriage law you'll find the requirement to have children, yet the state still provides incentives to for couples to stay together and have children. Most people don't even know why they get tax deductibles when they have children.
I think that the physical act of giving birth is meaningless and unimportant compared to the raising, teaching, and caring for a child that parents engage in.
How many people intentionally decide to not have children at all and yet stay in a legalized relationship? 5%? 10%?
The human species is in no danger of becoming extinct, so I'm not sure why you keep pressing this point.
Marriage is primarily about love and commitment, and provides stability for people to live happy and productive lives, whether or not they physically bear children shouldn't matter.
I think Civil Unions are entirely okay, but marriage is flat out. It would offend far too many people. The government needs to help the minorities, but appealing to the masses is often much more important.
Sorry gay folk, but I don't think society is ready for you just yet...which makes me upset because I thought America was becoming more accepting of people who are different.
Sorry gay folk, but I don't think society is ready for you just yet...which makes me upset because I thought America was becoming more accepting of people who are different.
Change is one thing...removing the moral fibers that this country was built on...well thats something completely different.
Tell that to a woman. Besides I can really see the connection between your statement and mine. Elaborate.
I'm not trying to downplay the painful and long endeavor that a woman goes through to bear and give birth to a child. However, if you were to ask me which I think is more difficult and in the long-term, more important - the bearing and birthing or the raising of a child, I choose the second one, and I think it is more important by a large margin.
It's also worth mentioning that American society already has a surplus of children, and as a result, many children do not have parents. What's needed is not more children, but more parents willing and capable of raising them.
This is a parents job...not that of other people. If the parents are unable to provide the simple tasks such as being a good role model for their kids...then they have failed as parents. What you are suggesting is village raising.
It's how it works in society - plenty of kids are raised without a parent for whatever reason, be it divorce or tragedy - and they latch onto a role model of their own.
One of my biggest "Macho Man" friends was raised by a single mom with a deadbeat dad that only got involved in his life when he was 17 - but he early on latched onto an ethically questionable but very masculine man as a role model - his morale compass from his mother kept him centered while this man that he sought out on his own made sure he became who he was.
Similarly, although hetero without a doubt, I've always been a bit feminine in how I carry myself enough so that I've had quite a few accusations over my decades on this planet. (And part of why I keep my look a bit bedraggled in recent memory - I get far more accusations when I keep every hair in place and every article of clothing well pressed) But in my case I had a very standard environment I was raised in if you look at it from afar - two parents that were always there, and a brother and sister living at home until I was 14 and 6 respectively. Except my father never really got involved with me, he'd get me stuff I was interested in and throw money at me, but never really got into any of the "teaching a guy to be a guy stuff" - because of that my brother became my role model until he moved out on his own around age 24 - at which point I was male role model-less during one of the most important times, when I was starting to date, etc. (I'd done a little "kid dating" ever since I was 12 or so but nothing serious)
Most kids are adaptable, they'll find a role model if they need one - and the one's that won't, can have them right in front of their face and never actively pursue it. (My father was always available if I was more aggressive about wanting his help, unfortunately the one thing I did get from him was stoicism - which although great for some things, it's awful for others)
It is unwritten because nowhere in marriage law you'll find the requirement to have children, yet the state still provides incentives to for couples to stay together and have children. Most people don't even know why they get tax deductibles when they have children.
If the state wants to give incentives for people to have children then that is one issue. However, if it is also giving those incentives to one group who cannot have children but denies them to another group that cannot have children then that is unequal enfrocement and unjust.
They are exceptions from the norm that yet have the chance to revert to abiding the deal. How many people intentionally decide to not have children at all and yet stay in a legalized relationship? 5%? 10%? The state will tolerate that minority in exchange for the benefits provided by all others.
This of course begs the question why should undesirable behaviour in one minority group be tolerated while the exact same behaviour in another minority group not be tolerated? That's pure favourtism and discrimination.
It's not a law. It's a one sided offer provided in hope it will cause a certain effect. If the effect cannot be achieved at all (and not because someone avoids it) the offer has no purpose.
Even if you approach it this way, the 'offer' has no purpose as well when it it extended to couples who are past child-bearing age or other infertile couples. Under your standard these couples should be denied the legal rights of marriage as well.
Which you get by having more children that grow into parents. I don't think you can grow fully adult parents.
What's your point? People are already having the children. There is no pressing need for each and every couple to have their 2.3 children. Most will, regardless of whether or not homosexuals get married.
This country was built on a belief that homosexual relationships are inherently inferior to mixed-sex relationships? I'm going to have to disagree.
That may be the belief of many...but thats not what this country was built on. It was built on Family Values.
@Vaclav,
While I'm sure that everyone won't agree with me...this video shows my point quite clearly. It isn't something that a parent does...its how a parent is. You don't become a role model for someone because of who you are...you become a role model by what you do. A child learns by watching. The most important things a child can learn is by watching your actions when you think that no one else is watching. This is how you become a positive role model.
I think Civil Unions are entirely okay, but marriage is flat out. It would offend far too many people. The government needs to help the minorities, but appealing to the masses is often much more important.
What?
Would you have said that to the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement about giving the black community the right to vote?
Would you have said that to the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement about giving the black community the right to vote?
You're comparing homosexuality with the right to vote? I fail to see the link between the two, could you make a better argument? This one leaves me scratching my head.
You're comparing homosexuality with the right to vote? I fail to see the link between the two, could you make a better argument? This one leaves me scratching my head.
Right to marry = basic human right
Right to vote = basic right in a democratic society
You're comparing homosexuality with the right to vote? I fail to see the link between the two, could you make a better argument? This one leaves me scratching my head.
That may be the belief of many...but thats not what this country was built on. It was built on Family Values.
The family values we hold are drastically different than the family values they founders held. EVERYONE since the dawn of civilization (likely even before) has had family values, it's part of our inherent programming, it's just a question of WHAT family values are subscribed to.
To many these days in the younger generations - integration of all walks of life, race and religion is becoming a family value. There's a reason why faiths such as UU's are growing rapidly compared to most other faiths which are either shrinking or just keeping in line with population growth.
@Vaclav,
While I'm sure that everyone won't agree with me...this video shows my point quite clearly. It isn't something that a parent does...its how a parent is. You don't become a role model for someone because of who you are...you become a role model by what you do. A child learns by watching. The most important things a child can learn is by watching your actions when you think that no one else is watching. This is how you become a positive role model.
Which was precisely my point - my father for example had BAD TRAITS for me to pick up on - I learned plenty by proxy from him a large number of things, some positive - I'd say more negative.
I learned to be stoic, to understand medicine and pharmacology to a degree that makes most people think I've got a minor in pharmaceutical chemistry when I've never taken a day of education on the subject, and to be a complete jerk in what appear to be tantrums when I have to repeat myself too frequently from my father. I learned from him to think less of others that took a long time for me to program back out of myself. I learned from him paranoia and that you should never be certain in your career lasting.
He influenced me without a doubt - but to assume that all influences of father's are good and that all influences of "Big Brothers/Big Sisters" type psuedo-parents are bad is very hazardsome.
And just to compare him against what I learned from my brother, my role model for most of my life - he influenced me to try to enjoy life, to not worry, that pain towards a greater goal wasn't a bad thing, how to be charming, how to carry oneself to succeed, how to draw people towards you to meet people rather than being forward, sports, hygiene, a love of food and cooking, that being a bit odd has benefits vs. being some dull generic staple, and that teasing someone carefully can help form them into something stronger in the end.
I don't resent my father at all, I think he was a good man but he was much more of a "manager" than a "father" in an ephemeral sense. (was in reference to while raising me - he's still alive)
Trust me. There was racism where you grew up. Segregation, perhaps not. But racism is so far from eliminated I would be very surprised if you lived in the paradise of racial equity and tolerance.
No, but it might be about religion hijacking a human concept and trying to make it sacred and unchangeable. You know, so we don't allow blacks and whites to marry and so women remain property in marriage and we keep divorce outlawed. Marriage is a sacred institution and cannot be changed or God is gonna get super pissed and, like, strangle a bunch of kittens.
I don't see what's inconclusive about them. Sure, there's no gay gene in the strict single sense. But science has unequivocably accepted that there is a genetic component to homosexuality. How else do you explain that when the only thing that changes is genetics there is a change in the incidence of homosexuality?
I'm of the opinion that homosexuality is a complicated phenomenon, causually speaking. There are people who experience the same things said to "cause" people to be gay - distant or absent fathers, overbearing mothers, sexual abuse, older male siblings - and are straight as can be. Likewise there are gays who experience none of these things. While certain factors in genetics and environment can be said to influence things, there really is no cause for being gay in a clear cut and simple way.
You know, I would say that should never happen. Really I would like to say that. And it probably never will happen.
But churches should be forced to marry gays. They are publicly funded with their special tax exempt status and if they are willing to relinquish this special status, they should be exempt and can do whatever they want. Just like the boy scouts, who are given a large swath of federal fuinding and preferential treatment, should be required to follow federal non-discrimination laws.
Thank you much, that was quite interesting. I always thought the "problem" with humanity evolving towards greater percentages of homosexuality makes little sense with how survival of the fittest works...
Trust me. I'm an Eagle Scout, and there is absolutely no way the BSA will allow for homosexuals to join in scouts any time soon. For Christ's sake, they don't even let girls join, like almost every other friggin' country on EARTH with a Scouting association does. It's quite ridiculous that we still have a sexually segregated Scouting association, where the boys go out on hikes and actually do stuff***, while the girls stay at home and sell cookies. What is this, the fifties?
The first thing I was asked in my Eagle Board of Review was "Do you have any doubts about your sexual orientation?" and "Do you believe in a supreme being or beings?"
The Boy Scouts, while a fantastic organization that truly helped me grow up and become a honorable citizen, has a long trail in front of them before they make it into the 21st century.
*** I'm not entirely sure if this is how the Girl Scouts is in most of the country, but this has been the gist of my experiences with it. I'd love to know it if the GS were more active than I am led to believe.
Thanks to the [Æther] shop for the sig!
You can probably tell us more about this than I, but from what I've been able to gather, the Scouts were basically hijacked by the religious right (in fact, I want to say the Mormons) in the '80s.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Which they are free to have when they refuse the special tax-exempt status of governmental support. You are free to worship anything and any how - just don't expect my tax dollars to treat you special for doing so.
@ Dark Knight: Yes, I realise the scouts will never do it of thier own will. But they should. They are very specially treated by the government and recieve signifigant federal funding. Yet they are allowed to discriminate against women, atheists and homosexuals. I was a scout too, and it's a great organization (luckily I was closeted and a theist at the time). But yes, they are stuck in the fifties and are creedist and sexist and heteronormativists bastards when it comes down to it.
Yes, the religious right made the scouts their pet project in the 80's jsut like they are making gay marriage their thing today.
This makes me really start to dislike the Mormons more specifically.
I'll back away from this thread, give this much thought, and try to riposte something without labouring the point. Thanks for that. =)
Blinky, you quoted the wrong person. ;p
By virtue, I can't join BS(A).
I should be a little more knowledgeable about where I've been and lived; that being said, perhaps I am a little naive.
Funny fact; there actually were instances of segregation in the history of the place. The 'natives inhabitants' weren't allowed to ride with whites on public transport.
So... I guess you're right; conditionally so, though.
Uh, so, you're case is that, in any given human's genotype, there is nothing biochemical, genetic, that governs one's sexual orientation or preference?
... mutations?
Edit:
No, I'm serious. The level of racism will nigh-zilch, if not zilch itself.
There are other forms of discriminatory behaviour, though; but, what's your point, in reference to this thread?
Uh, perhaps about a hundred years ago? Definitely not now or any time in the past twenty years.
Well, isn't most everything so, too?
It was simply a proferred possibility.
What, oh?
Is this a sudden change in the population of the human species. I beg my pardon, but what was the time-frame?
Spare me your sardonicism and irony, please.
I think you meant to quote me....
Ummm, they never told us anything about that, nor did I have that impression really. However, I understand that to be the case generally speaking on a national level. Keep in mind that my troop was centered in one of the most liberal areas of Rhode Island.
The adults in my troop were quite conservative, but they never imposed such beliefs on us youngins. They taught us respect for the flag and such, which is as close to a right wing thing that I ever found (which I think is pretty centrist).
The adults in my troop were actually quite accepting of my opinion. In my Eagle Board, they asked me if there were anything that I would change about scouts, and I said that I would have homosexual and atheistic scouts not be discriminated against, and I would integrate the BSA and the Girl Scouts. I said that I believe a gay atheist who follows the 12 points of the Scout Law embodies the spirit of the Eagle Scout more than some straight Christian who does not.
Some adult leaders were pissed when I said that. Most, however, nodded and simply said "Well, we'll see, won't we?".
My troop is awesome.
EDIT: Yes, I realize that the 12th point in the Scout Law is that a Scout is reverent. I told them that this is the most random and out of place point, in my opinion. The law is about service to your country, as is Scouts, and this whole God business seems so disposable. I learned so much from Scouts, and in my entire thirteen years in the program I spent maybe three hours talking about religion. In fact, I probably spent more time in my Eagle Board talking about religion than in the entirety of my scouting career, pointing out just how unimportant it is.
I said that there are a couple of R words that could replace Reverent more appropriately, like Respectful or Responsible. Those are more in tune with the rest of the Scout Law IMO.
Thanks to the [Æther] shop for the sig!
Yeah. That's a form of segregation and I would think failing to identify that as racist is exremely naive. Most people who claim to have not experienced racism or see that it's an issue are just not aware of it. Hence my confidence in doubting your statement that you grew up in a racism-free zone.
Sure, I am conditionally right. The condition being the fact that you grew up somewhere racism was an issue.
If you want to call that "conditionally right."
No, my point, there for the reading, is that there is no single clear gay gene. My point is that there are a variety of genetic and environmental contributors.
Right. What an elegant solution. There is a spontaneous mutation in about 5-10% of the population that just happens to have the same effect in all the people. So much for mutaitons being rare and random. Now they are common and uniform.
[EDH] Ob Nixilis the Fallen
I would hardly call it an 'unwritten' deal when there are written laws to enforce it.
Couples who are known to be infertile or past child-bearing age are also not flukes. Married couples who use contraception to avoid having children are also not flukes. They reap the benefits of the 'unwritten deal' but never intend to honour their side of it. One could say that they are defrauding the system.
The issue is that you cannot write laws that are intenteded to promote one type of behaviour but then let things slide for people you like. That's called corruption.
If you enact a "no parking on Main Street" law but then do not enforce it against the members of the mayor's church, you have essentially enacted a "reserved parking for members of the mayor's church" law.
The intent of a law becomes irrelevant if you never intend to enforce that intent.
Using another analogy: if you give people $10 a month not to park in a certain area but then do not take the money away from people who still part there, you have essentially created a free $10 handout.
Yes, gay marriage should most definitely and obviously be legal. Despite the rather dark history of underground gay society in the mid-20th century which was defined largely by promiscuity, binge drinking, and drug abuse, much has changed since then. Homosexuals are far more integrated now into mainstream America, which has been of great benefit.
Homosexuals are just as capable of forming committed, long-term relationships as heterosexuals, and through adoption, offer nearly the same benefits to society through marriage as do mixed-sex couples. They cannot choose who they are attracted to anymore than straight people can, and they have the same broad range of feelings including physical and emotional attraction.
The vast majority of arguments against gay marriage, and against homosexuality in general, are deeply emotional and religious in nature, and as such tend to be irrational. They seek to justify base, gut feelings that have no real rational justification (call it the "that's just wrong" knee-jerk reaction).
Dark_Knight: That's a very interesting take on the BSA and GSA. I too am an Eagle Scout and cherish my years invested in the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts. I am much more troubled by the proliferation of pro-religion and anti-gay ideology into the core belief system of the Scouts than the gender segregation, though I fear that preference is simply personal bias.
I have heard innumerable stories about how dysfunctional an organization the Girl Scouts of America are, and have also spoken with more than a few college-aged girls that have told me that they joined the Girl Scouts but hated it, and couldn't wait until their 14th birthday, when they would be allowed to join a co-ed Venturing crew, where they actually DID STUFF, as you so eloquently put it :-P
Without going off-topic too much, I have just 2 more comments about the Scouts:
- In at least some other countries, Scouting organizations are segregated along sectarian lines, as they are in Ireland.
- Does anyone know if it's true that the Mormon Church has a large influence on the BSA, and has since the 80s? If so, between that and the anti-Prop8 funding, I'm beginning to have a major problem with the Mormon Church.
I simply think the word reverent has a more powerful message behind it. Yes, I'm sure that some troops interpret it as reverence to God, but that doesn't mean that it invalidates the law at all.
I think that the physical act of giving birth is meaningless and unimportant compared to the raising, teaching, and caring for a child that parents engage in.
The human species is in no danger of becoming extinct, so I'm not sure why you keep pressing this point.
Marriage is primarily about love and commitment, and provides stability for people to live happy and productive lives, whether or not they physically bear children shouldn't matter.
Sorry gay folk, but I don't think society is ready for you just yet...which makes me upset because I thought America was becoming more accepting of people who are different.
[EDH] Ob Nixilis the Fallen
I'm not trying to downplay the painful and long endeavor that a woman goes through to bear and give birth to a child. However, if you were to ask me which I think is more difficult and in the long-term, more important - the bearing and birthing or the raising of a child, I choose the second one, and I think it is more important by a large margin.
It's also worth mentioning that American society already has a surplus of children, and as a result, many children do not have parents. What's needed is not more children, but more parents willing and capable of raising them.
Fair enough, although I didn't realize I was misunderstanding you at the time.
No, but everyone else does.
Why? What benefit does that give the state?
Double post merged.
This country was built on a belief that homosexual relationships are inherently inferior to mixed-sex relationships? I'm going to have to disagree.
It's how it works in society - plenty of kids are raised without a parent for whatever reason, be it divorce or tragedy - and they latch onto a role model of their own.
One of my biggest "Macho Man" friends was raised by a single mom with a deadbeat dad that only got involved in his life when he was 17 - but he early on latched onto an ethically questionable but very masculine man as a role model - his morale compass from his mother kept him centered while this man that he sought out on his own made sure he became who he was.
Similarly, although hetero without a doubt, I've always been a bit feminine in how I carry myself enough so that I've had quite a few accusations over my decades on this planet. (And part of why I keep my look a bit bedraggled in recent memory - I get far more accusations when I keep every hair in place and every article of clothing well pressed) But in my case I had a very standard environment I was raised in if you look at it from afar - two parents that were always there, and a brother and sister living at home until I was 14 and 6 respectively. Except my father never really got involved with me, he'd get me stuff I was interested in and throw money at me, but never really got into any of the "teaching a guy to be a guy stuff" - because of that my brother became my role model until he moved out on his own around age 24 - at which point I was male role model-less during one of the most important times, when I was starting to date, etc. (I'd done a little "kid dating" ever since I was 12 or so but nothing serious)
Most kids are adaptable, they'll find a role model if they need one - and the one's that won't, can have them right in front of their face and never actively pursue it. (My father was always available if I was more aggressive about wanting his help, unfortunately the one thing I did get from him was stoicism - which although great for some things, it's awful for others)
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
If the state wants to give incentives for people to have children then that is one issue. However, if it is also giving those incentives to one group who cannot have children but denies them to another group that cannot have children then that is unequal enfrocement and unjust.
This of course begs the question why should undesirable behaviour in one minority group be tolerated while the exact same behaviour in another minority group not be tolerated? That's pure favourtism and discrimination.
Even if you approach it this way, the 'offer' has no purpose as well when it it extended to couples who are past child-bearing age or other infertile couples. Under your standard these couples should be denied the legal rights of marriage as well.
Right, but how does having a financial investment in that change anything? In terms of tax burden, they probably won't break even most of the time.
The state also cannot thrive is families don't exist. Doesn't the state also have a vested interest in promoting and supporting families?
What's your point? People are already having the children. There is no pressing need for each and every couple to have their 2.3 children. Most will, regardless of whether or not homosexuals get married.
@Vaclav,
While I'm sure that everyone won't agree with me...this video shows my point quite clearly. It isn't something that a parent does...its how a parent is. You don't become a role model for someone because of who you are...you become a role model by what you do. A child learns by watching. The most important things a child can learn is by watching your actions when you think that no one else is watching. This is how you become a positive role model.
[EDH] Ob Nixilis the Fallen
What?
Would you have said that to the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement about giving the black community the right to vote?
Thanks to the [Æther] shop for the sig!
You're comparing homosexuality with the right to vote? I fail to see the link between the two, could you make a better argument? This one leaves me scratching my head.
Right to marry = basic human right
Right to vote = basic right in a democratic society
Thanks to the guys at Highlight Studios for the great banner and avatar.
Trade with me http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=101483&highlight=" rel="nofollow"here.
Very well. How about Anti-Miscegenation Laws?
The creator of Maro's Magic 8-Ball!
The family values we hold are drastically different than the family values they founders held. EVERYONE since the dawn of civilization (likely even before) has had family values, it's part of our inherent programming, it's just a question of WHAT family values are subscribed to.
To many these days in the younger generations - integration of all walks of life, race and religion is becoming a family value. There's a reason why faiths such as UU's are growing rapidly compared to most other faiths which are either shrinking or just keeping in line with population growth.
Which was precisely my point - my father for example had BAD TRAITS for me to pick up on - I learned plenty by proxy from him a large number of things, some positive - I'd say more negative.
I learned to be stoic, to understand medicine and pharmacology to a degree that makes most people think I've got a minor in pharmaceutical chemistry when I've never taken a day of education on the subject, and to be a complete jerk in what appear to be tantrums when I have to repeat myself too frequently from my father. I learned from him to think less of others that took a long time for me to program back out of myself. I learned from him paranoia and that you should never be certain in your career lasting.
He influenced me without a doubt - but to assume that all influences of father's are good and that all influences of "Big Brothers/Big Sisters" type psuedo-parents are bad is very hazardsome.
And just to compare him against what I learned from my brother, my role model for most of my life - he influenced me to try to enjoy life, to not worry, that pain towards a greater goal wasn't a bad thing, how to be charming, how to carry oneself to succeed, how to draw people towards you to meet people rather than being forward, sports, hygiene, a love of food and cooking, that being a bit odd has benefits vs. being some dull generic staple, and that teasing someone carefully can help form them into something stronger in the end.
I don't resent my father at all, I think he was a good man but he was much more of a "manager" than a "father" in an ephemeral sense. (was in reference to while raising me - he's still alive)
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.