|
|
| Post Number: 31
|
KenV 
Group: Members
Posts: 5544
Joined: Mar. 2002
|
 |
Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 7:05 pm |
|
   |
(GoBlueHiker @ Jan. 30 2013, 2:36 pm)
QUOTE
(mocamper1 @ Jan. 30 2013, 12:06 pm)
QUOTE As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and as a scoutmaster of my congregation's troop, I don't see any problem with this.
Homosexuals in the Church can hold callings (assignments or duties) within the church and can fully participate as long as they are worthy to do so.
I don't have a problem with homosexuals in the BSA so long as they, like heterosexuals, live by and promote the values of the organization. (my emphasis added)That's been the tricky point now, hasn't it. "Worthy to do so" has historically meant "actively hide your sexuality, don't take up any same-sex partners, don't let anyone know you're a homosexual and try as best as you can to blend in with all the other good moral heterosexuals. If anyone finds out about you being homosexual, even if you never brought it up yourself, you're gone." Which isn't really inclusion at all, is it.
Hmmm.
Gays can be totally open about their sexual preference and still be in good standing in the church. For example this man.
He is not the only openly gay Mormon. Indeed there are multiple gay wards (a ward is an LDS congregation) in the LDS church.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 32
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39530
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 9:04 pm |
|
 |
(KenV @ Feb. 01 2013, 3:59 pm)
QUOTE
(High_Sierra_Fan @ Jan. 28 2013, 11:35 pm)
QUOTE Had they actively banned discrimination it would have been huge.
But that would have meant actually taking a stand against, for example, the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who sponsors a huge number of the local troops. Ummm, HSF, haven't you made a HUGE false assumption here? The LDS church admits gays in the church, gays can hold the priesthood and can enter LDS temples and participate in the most sacred of LDS ordinances. A gay man can lead an LDS deacon quorum (boys aged 12 & 13) but cannot become a scout leader for those same boys because of the BSA ban, NOT because of any bans by the LDS church. The LDS church is way ahead of BSA on this subject. I would not be surprised if Catholic church sponsored scout units are the same.
Not based on last summers support by both organizations of the BSA's reiteration of its anti-gay position. I would, of course, welcome both church's voicing of support for a complete ban of local troop discrimination which would be beyond what the national council has suggested they may consider.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 33
|
Walkinman
A rainbow
Group: Members
Posts: 6613
Joined: Nov. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 02 2013, 6:27 pm |
|
|
(KenV @ Feb. 01 2013, 3:05 pm)
QUOTE
(GoBlueHiker @ Jan. 30 2013, 2:36 pm)
QUOTE
(mocamper1 @ Jan. 30 2013, 12:06 pm)
QUOTE As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and as a scoutmaster of my congregation's troop, I don't see any problem with this.
Homosexuals in the Church can hold callings (assignments or duties) within the church and can fully participate as long as they are worthy to do so.
I don't have a problem with homosexuals in the BSA so long as they, like heterosexuals, live by and promote the values of the organization. (my emphasis added)That's been the tricky point now, hasn't it. "Worthy to do so" has historically meant "actively hide your sexuality, don't take up any same-sex partners, don't let anyone know you're a homosexual and try as best as you can to blend in with all the other good moral heterosexuals. If anyone finds out about you being homosexual, even if you never brought it up yourself, you're gone." Which isn't really inclusion at all, is it. Hmmm. Gays can be totally open about their sexual preference and still be in good standing in the church. For example this man. He is not the only openly gay Mormon. Indeed there are multiple gay wards (a ward is an LDS congregation) in the LDS church.
Ken, please.
Lock your little gay post boi back in his closet. Josh Weed is not a gay man .. and his/your church is not OK with him actually being gay; the church is OK with him SAYING he's gay .. but not actually BEING gay. And they certainly are not OK with BSA leaders being gay.
You told me once before in a discussion that sexuality (and homosexuality) is a verb. i.e. Josh is not homosexual.
If Josh Weed is happy seeing his sexual activity with his wife as his 'duty' and she's happy being with a man who is not sexually attracted to her, more power to them. But don't for a second pretend he's "open" about his sexual preference. He's not. He's lying to himself, his wife, his family, his god, and everyone else.
--------------
Guided Alaska backpacking and hiking trips
"What good is a used up world and how can it be worth having?" -- Sting, All This Time.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 34
|
GoBlueHiker
Obsessive Island Hopper...
Group: Members
Posts: 14069
Joined: Jul. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 02 2013, 8:00 pm |
|
|
(KenV @ Feb. 01 2013, 5:05 pm)
QUOTE
(GoBlueHiker @ Jan. 30 2013, 2:36 pm)
QUOTE
(mocamper1 @ Jan. 30 2013, 12:06 pm)
QUOTE As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and as a scoutmaster of my congregation's troop, I don't see any problem with this.
Homosexuals in the Church can hold callings (assignments or duties) within the church and can fully participate as long as they are worthy to do so.
I don't have a problem with homosexuals in the BSA so long as they, like heterosexuals, live by and promote the values of the organization. (my emphasis added)That's been the tricky point now, hasn't it. "Worthy to do so" has historically meant "actively hide your sexuality, don't take up any same-sex partners, don't let anyone know you're a homosexual and try as best as you can to blend in with all the other good moral heterosexuals. If anyone finds out about you being homosexual, even if you never brought it up yourself, you're gone." Which isn't really inclusion at all, is it. Hmmm. Gays can be totally open about their sexual preference and still be in good standing in the church. For example this man. He is not the only openly gay Mormon. Indeed there are multiple gay wards (a ward is an LDS congregation) in the LDS church.
Yes yes, Ken. You've explained it before. They're free to be openly gay in the LDS church as long as they don't do anything gay. Marry a woman, have kids, but they mustn't follow their gayness because that'd be evil.
Oh, and they'd better not try to lead any youth.
How accepting.
--------------
Wealth needs more. Happiness needs less. Simplify.
www.RainForestTreks.com
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 35
|
|
|
| Post Number: 36
|
|
|
| Post Number: 37
|
KenV
Group: Members
Posts: 5544
Joined: Mar. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 02 2013, 8:32 pm |
|
|
(Walkinman @ Feb. 02 2013, 6:27 pm)
QUOTE Ken, please.
Lock your little gay post boi back in his closet. Josh Weed is not a gay man .. and his/your church is not OK with him actually being gay; the church is OK with him SAYING he's gay .. but not actually BEING gay. And they certainly are not OK with BSA leaders being gay.
You told me once before in a discussion that sexuality (and homosexuality) is a verb. i.e. Josh is not homosexual.
If Josh Weed is happy seeing his sexual activity with his wife as his 'duty' and she's happy being with a man who is not sexually attracted to her, more power to them. But don't for a second pretend he's "open" about his sexual preference. He's not. He's lying to himself, his wife, his family, his god, and everyone else.
Josh Weed is not gay because he does not "behave" gay enough. By who's standards? Your's? Only your kind of gay relationship can be "true"? What a crock of crap.
That's like saying I'm not hetero because I don't "behave" hetero enough. By whose standards? Hugh Hefner's? I repeat, what a crock of crap.
You claim he's not sexually attracted to his wife yet he is able to father children with her. And from what he wrote, there is clearly an undeniably powerful attraction between him and her in BOTH directions.
And you claim he is lying to his god. What would you know about that?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 38
|
HighGravity
Group: Members
Posts: 2322
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 02 2013, 9:01 pm |
|
|
Mormons are weird.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 39
|
|
|
| Post Number: 40
|
Three
.jpg)
Group: Members
Posts: 746
Joined: Dec. 2011
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 02 2013, 9:45 pm |
|
|
(Ben2World @ Jan. 31 2013, 8:40 am)
QUOTE
(isawtman @ Jan. 30 2013, 6:34 pm)
QUOTE Let's just say that the people who are abusing young men
are not Openly Gay. I think the sooner people recognize that sexual orientation is NO predictor of sexual perversion -- the better. Reverse discrimination is just as much a fallacy as discrimination.
Homosexual behavior is perversion - it perverts God's design for human sexuality.
"A Scout is Clean - A Scout keeps his body and mind fit and clean. He chooses the company of those who live by high standards. He helps keep his home and community clean.
"A Scout is Reverent - A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others."
Affirmation of homosexual behavior or any other sexual misconduct (permarital sex, adultery etc.) has no place in scouting.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 41
|
Ben2World
Group: Members
Posts: 23910
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 02 2013, 10:33 pm |
|
|
(Three @ Feb. 02 2013, 6:45 pm)
QUOTE
(Ben2World @ Jan. 31 2013, 8:40 am)
QUOTE
(isawtman @ Jan. 30 2013, 6:34 pm)
QUOTE Let's just say that the people who are abusing young men
are not Openly Gay. I think the sooner people recognize that sexual orientation is NO predictor of sexual perversion -- the better. Reverse discrimination is just as much a fallacy as discrimination. Homosexual behavior is perversion - it perverts God's design for human sexuality.
Sexual orientation is no predictor of sexual perversion -- in the context of abusing children.
--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page. -- St. Augustine
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 42
|
|
|
| Post Number: 43
|
Walkinman
A rainbow
Group: Members
Posts: 6613
Joined: Nov. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 02 2013, 11:26 pm |
|
|
(KenV @ Feb. 02 2013, 4:32 pm)
QUOTE
(Walkinman @ Feb. 02 2013, 6:27 pm)
QUOTE Ken, please.
Lock your little gay post boi back in his closet. Josh Weed is not a gay man .. and his/your church is not OK with him actually being gay; the church is OK with him SAYING he's gay .. but not actually BEING gay. And they certainly are not OK with BSA leaders being gay.
You told me once before in a discussion that sexuality (and homosexuality) is a verb. i.e. Josh is not homosexual.
If Josh Weed is happy seeing his sexual activity with his wife as his 'duty' and she's happy being with a man who is not sexually attracted to her, more power to them. But don't for a second pretend he's "open" about his sexual preference. He's not. He's lying to himself, his wife, his family, his god, and everyone else. Josh Weed is not gay because he does not "behave" gay enough. By who's standards? Your's? Only your kind of gay relationship can be "true"? What a crock of crap. That's like saying I'm not hetero because I don't "behave" hetero enough. By whose standards? Hugh Hefner's? I repeat, what a crock of crap. You claim he's not sexually attracted to his wife yet he is able to father children with her. And from what he wrote, there is clearly an undeniably powerful attraction between him and her in BOTH directions. And you claim he is lying to his god. What would you know about that?
KenV
Don't try to pull that crap on me .. the ONLY reason you and your church (and his church) are in ANY way 'OK" with him is because he's not 'too gay', by your own ridiculous standards.
It's not that he doesn't "behave" gay it's that he denies his own sexuality.
He claims he's not sexually attracted to his wife, not me .. if he IS sexually attracted to her, then, by definition, he's not gay.
Well if he's lying, then it's lying to his god; that seems reasonably simple enough that even you ought be able to grasp it.
--------------
Guided Alaska backpacking and hiking trips
"What good is a used up world and how can it be worth having?" -- Sting, All This Time.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 44
|
Ben2World
Group: Members
Posts: 23910
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 02 2013, 11:43 pm |
|
|
(Walkinman @ Feb. 02 2013, 8:26 pm)
QUOTE Don't try to pull that crap on me .. the ONLY reason you and your church (and his church) are in ANY way 'OK" with him is because he's not 'too gay', by your own ridiculous standards.
It's not that he doesn't "behave" gay it's that he denies his own sexuality.
He claims he's not sexually attracted to his wife, not me .. if he IS sexually attracted to her, then, by definition, he's not gay.
Well if he's lying, then it's lying to his god; that seems reasonably simple enough that even you ought be able to grasp it.
The man subscribes to the teachings of his church. Denying self is nothing new -- both inside and outside of church. And in the end, yes, it will be between him and God.
So many different religions... or even no religion at all... so many different views of right and wrong... arguments about what is perverse and what is wholesome are pretty much going to be both endless and almost pointless. The greater concern -- to me -- is that we ensure everyone a freedom of choice -- without coercion whichever way.
--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page. -- St. Augustine
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 45
|
DonTom
Trixie
Group: Members
Posts: 3392
Joined: Feb. 2010
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 03 2013, 7:10 am |
|
|
(Ben2World @ Feb. 02 2013, 8:43 pm)
QUOTE The man subscribes to the teachings of his church. Denying self is nothing new -- both inside and outside of church. And in the end, yes, it will be between him and God.
So many different religions... or even no religion at all... so many different views of right and wrong... arguments about what is perverse and what is wholesome are pretty much going to be both endless and almost pointless. The greater concern -- to me -- is that we ensure everyone a freedom of choice -- without coercion whichever way.
+1. I couldn't agree more.
I think one thing is clear, that Josh Weed would rather be heterosexual. Therefore, he tries to be such, but at least he's honest about it, IMO. He could totally deny the fact that he is gay, but he doesn't. No doubt there are many gays in opposite sex marriages like his who would never admit such to anybody.
But, I kinda consider it a perversion for a gay male to go with a heterosexual woman in such ways. But that's their choice.
Likewise, I feel it's a perversion for two heterosexual men to go with each other in such ways.
IMO, if Mother Nature wanted Josh to go with a woman, he would have been naturally attracted to women. But IAC, it's his choice and we should all respect that.
-Don-
--------------
-Don- South San Francisco, CA or Cold Springs Valley, NV (near Reno).
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 46
|
|
|
| Post Number: 47
|
|
|
| Post Number: 48
|
double cabin
Group: Members
Posts: 15411
Joined: Nov. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 03 2013, 11:04 am |
|
|
(Three @ Feb. 02 2013, 9:45 pm)
QUOTE
(Ben2World @ Jan. 31 2013, 8:40 am)
QUOTE
(isawtman @ Jan. 30 2013, 6:34 pm)
QUOTE Let's just say that the people who are abusing young men
are not Openly Gay. I think the sooner people recognize that sexual orientation is NO predictor of sexual perversion -- the better. Reverse discrimination is just as much a fallacy as discrimination. Homosexual behavior is perversion - it perverts God's design for human sexuality. "A Scout is Clean - A Scout keeps his body and mind fit and clean. He chooses the company of those who live by high standards. He helps keep his home and community clean. "A Scout is Reverent - A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others." Affirmation of homosexual behavior or any other sexual misconduct (permarital sex, adultery etc.) has no place in scouting.
So 3 I guess promoting a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution of the United States is a part of scouting?
I'm with HSF on this. Either condemn this utterly un-American tripe outright or keep being the bigoted, disrespectful organization you always have been.
I wanted my nephew's Scoutmaster to be the most qualified instructor and mentor he could be, I didn't want him being a bigoted unAmerican schmuck. Fortunately that CHRISTAIN scoutmaster had grown beyond all the bigoted, cruel aspects of the Bible, not just slavery, misogyny, etc.
If only more of us had an alacrity to grow into better human beings.
--------------
We have nothing to fear but an industry of fear...and man skirts.
http://www.facebook.com/media/albums/?id=129511480442251
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 49
|
Old Frank
Group: Members
Posts: 624
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 03 2013, 11:50 am |
|
|
Don, all you and Josh need to do is grow a backbone, suppress those urges for a same-sex mate that you were born with, and you'll get a just reward when you die.
Won't be that long, life is real short.
--------------
My favorite compliment: "GrandPa, I've seen other old men, and their faces are a whole lot cruddier than yours is".
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 50
|
|
|
| Post Number: 51
|
TigerFan
Group: Members
Posts: 1998
Joined: May 2010
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 03 2013, 12:05 pm |
|
|
(Three @ Feb. 02 2013, 9:45 pm)
QUOTE Homosexual behavior is perversion - it perverts God's design for human sexuality.
"A Scout is Clean - A Scout keeps his body and mind fit and clean. He chooses the company of those who live by high standards. He helps keep his home and community clean.
"A Scout is Reverent - A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others."
Affirmation of homosexual behavior or any other sexual misconduct (permarital sex, adultery etc.) has no place in scouting.
Imo, the BSA simply has a decision to make. It's either a religious organization that promotes the beliefs of a particular religious group, which it certainly has a right to be, OR it's a secular American youth organization that promotes personal integrity, honesty, discipline, etc.
If it's the first, then I think it's inappropriate for it to be in our public schools, use federal lands, etc. If it's the latter, then I think they need to remove religious references from its policies. "Good character" doesn't depend on the Bible.
--------------
Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 52
|
Ben2World
Group: Members
Posts: 23910
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 03 2013, 12:27 pm |
|
|
(TigerFan @ Feb. 03 2013, 9:05 am)
QUOTE If it's the first, then I think it's inappropriate for it to be in our public schools, use federal lands, etc. If it's the latter, then I think they need to remove religious references from its policies. "Good character" doesn't depend on the Bible.
If BSA (or any other organization) wishes to follow rules that discriminate against certain behavior (or people) -- then I agree there should be NO public monetary support (much less endorsement of any kind).
OTOH, I do not feel that 'controversial' ideas or organizations -- including religious ideas and organizations -- ought to be kept away from our public schools. Not saying everything ought to infiltrate freely into our school systems (it's why we have adults doing the teaching) -- but do we really want to keep religion, etc., etc. out of our schools -- meaning not even as after-school clubs or activities? Surefire way to help breed continued ignorance instead of guided exposure/education!
Conversely, just think how schools that try to keep out Science (evolution) are sadly fostering ignorance in kids...
--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page. -- St. Augustine
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 53
|
Ben2World
Group: Members
Posts: 23910
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 03 2013, 12:36 pm |
|
|
(DonTom @ Feb. 03 2013, 4:10 am)
QUOTE
(Ben2World @ Feb. 02 2013, 8:43 pm)
QUOTE The man subscribes to the teachings of his church. Denying self is nothing new -- both inside and outside of church. And in the end, yes, it will be between him and God.
So many different religions... or even no religion at all... so many different views of right and wrong... arguments about what is perverse and what is wholesome are pretty much going to be both endless and almost pointless. The greater concern -- to me -- is that we ensure everyone a freedom of choice -- without coercion whichever way. +1. I couldn't agree more. I think one thing is clear, that Josh Weed would rather be heterosexual. Therefore, he tries to be such, but at least he's honest about it, IMO. He could totally deny the fact that he is gay, but he doesn't. No doubt there are many gays in opposite sex marriages like his who would never admit such to anybody. But, I kinda consider it a perversion for a gay male to go with a heterosexual woman in such ways. But that's their choice. Likewise, I feel it's a perversion for two heterosexual men to go with each other in such ways. IMO, if Mother Nature wanted Josh to go with a woman, he would have been naturally attracted to women. But IAC, it's his choice and we should all respect that. -Don-
Thanks, Don.
My view -- sure, some people are clearly hetero or clearly homo -- but I believe the overall range of human sexual orientation is more like a spectrum where one color bleeds slowly into the next -- and not just falling into 3 or 4 distinct categories. Many people have a stronger preference toward one sex, but are also attracted to the other sex. I believe we label those who are essentially 50:50 as "bisexual". I say they are just as natural as the next guy...
--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page. -- St. Augustine
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 54
|
TigerFan
Group: Members
Posts: 1998
Joined: May 2010
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 03 2013, 12:38 pm |
|
|
(Ben2World @ Feb. 03 2013, 12:27 pm)
QUOTE OTOH, I do not feel that 'controversial' ideas or organizations -- including religious ideas and organizations -- ought to be kept away from our public schools. Not saying everything ought to infiltrate freely into our school systems (it's why we have adults doing the teaching) -- but do we really want to keep religion, etc., etc. out of our schools -- meaning not even as after-school clubs or activities? Surefire way to help breed continued ignorance instead of guided exposure/education!
The issue isn't about being "controversial" for me. Imo, any club or organization that prevents certain kids from joining for disciminatory reasons doesn't belong in public school. Period.
For instance, to belong to a jazz band, it would be a requirement to play an instrument but that's not a discriminatory requirement. You want to start a "Christian" club? No problem as long as you don't have to be Christian to join. Most schools already have a no-exclusion policy for clubs but they sort of overlook the BSA "no gays" policy (or simply ignore it, more likely.)
--------------
Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 55
|
Ben2World
Group: Members
Posts: 23910
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 03 2013, 12:43 pm |
|
|
(TigerFan @ Feb. 03 2013, 9:38 am)
QUOTE
(Ben2World @ Feb. 03 2013, 12:27 pm)
QUOTE OTOH, I do not feel that 'controversial' ideas or organizations -- including religious ideas and organizations -- ought to be kept away from our public schools. Not saying everything ought to infiltrate freely into our school systems (it's why we have adults doing the teaching) -- but do we really want to keep religion, etc., etc. out of our schools -- meaning not even as after-school clubs or activities? Surefire way to help breed continued ignorance instead of guided exposure/education! The issue isn't about being "controversial" for me. Imo, any club or organization that prevents certain kids from joining for disciminatory reasons doesn't belong in public school. Period. For instance, to belong to a jazz band, it would be a requirement to play an instrument but that's not a discriminatory requirement. You want to start a "Christian" club? No problem as long as you don't have to be Christian to join. Most schools already have a no-exclusion policy for clubs but they sort of overlook the BSA "no gays" policy (or simply ignore it, more likely.)
That I agree. School clubs should be open to all. Heck, that is (or ought to be) in total convergence with Christian ideals (and most other religions that I know of). Of course, clubs can have rules of behavior and means for expelling disruptive members (such as, for example, a Jehovah Witness student who joins the Wiccan Club just to wave her bible and condemning everyone at meetings).
--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page. -- St. Augustine
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 56
|
double cabin
Group: Members
Posts: 15411
Joined: Nov. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 03 2013, 12:58 pm |
|
|
If a religious organization respects the Republic and doesn't discriminate or prosthyletize to kids or anyone else in public venues then I say do all the good you can. The BSA is not currently and will not be such an organization under this proposal. You either respect what America is truly about or you exercise your bigotry and predjudice behind the closed doors of your private institution.
--------------
We have nothing to fear but an industry of fear...and man skirts.
http://www.facebook.com/media/albums/?id=129511480442251
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 57
|
|
|
| Post Number: 58
|
double cabin
Group: Members
Posts: 15411
Joined: Nov. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 03 2013, 1:21 pm |
|
|
1) The Constitution: Life, liberty, the "pursuit of happiness," etc. does not allow for the suppression of the freedom of ANYONE in public venues. As long as the BSA doesn't reject unAmerican discrimination and is endorsed and supported by public schools and other public entities those entities are acting in violation of the Constitution.
2) Yes, you either believe in the veracity of the semantically indisputable provisions of the Constitution or you don't, period. Same goes for the ignoramuses that don't "think" the first part of the Second Amendment is an unequivocal qualifier for the second part of that Amendment. You can call yourself a "Constitutionalist" like Gungslinger all you want, doesn't change the fact it's an entirely deceitful assertion if you want to selectively apply freedom or contend the Founders intended something there is no logical reason to believe they did.
Yeah, you either respect the truth that Freedom is not to be selectively applied in our Constitutional Republic or you demonstrate yourself to be the kind of intolerant schmuck our Founders went to great lengths to prevent from coming to power.
--------------
We have nothing to fear but an industry of fear...and man skirts.
http://www.facebook.com/media/albums/?id=129511480442251
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 59
|
|
|
| Post Number: 60
|
Three
Group: Members
Posts: 746
Joined: Dec. 2011
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 03 2013, 3:55 pm |
|
|
(double cabin @ Feb. 03 2013, 1:21 pm)
QUOTE 1) The Constitution: Life, liberty, the "pursuit of happiness," etc. does not allow for the suppression of the freedom of ANYONE in public venues. As long as the BSA doesn't reject unAmerican discrimination and is endorsed and supported by public schools and other public entities those entities are acting in violation of the Constitution.
2) Yes, you either believe in the veracity of the semantically indisputable provisions of the Constitution or you don't, period. Same goes for the ignoramuses that don't "think" the first part of the Second Amendment is an unequivocal qualifier for the second part of that Amendment. You can call yourself a "Constitutionalist" like Gungslinger all you want, doesn't change the fact it's an entirely deceitful assertion if you want to selectively apply freedom or contend the Founders intended something there is no logical reason to believe they did.
Yeah, you either respect the truth that Freedom is not to be selectively applied in our Constitutional Republic or you demonstrate yourself to be the kind of intolerant schmuck our Founders went to great lengths to prevent from coming to power.
DC,
BSA is a private organization. It doesn't suppress anyone's freedom.
If one does like the scout law, tan uniforms, its traditional values postion on homosexuality, or neckerchiefs, one is not forced to join and there are no governmental penalties for not joining.
Or are we now a society where political correctness is the new party line and disagreement equals marginalization?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
