Send the ACLU a Christmas Card

Another thing is: My choice of the word "suffer" had to do with the notion that I was wondering how many guys would continue their promiscuous ways if they actually had to go through the sleep deprivation caused by having to listen to a crying baby for two years and learning how to get up to change dirty diapers every two hours and all that good fun happy stuff that women have to put up with.

 

I've heard different things about welfare reform, so I'm not quite sure what to believe. I've heard from some that welfare reform has been a hand up to some who have gotten off welfare by becoming gainfully employed and so no longer needing welfare. If that is true, then, by all means, I would think that welfare reform is a good thing. On the other hand, I have also heard that some people who genuinely qualified for welfare were denied. And, if that is the case, then I guess that welfare reform is a bad thing. I guess if I were the one in control of the welfare system, I think I would design it in such a way as that the welfare recipient would be simultaneously taught how to fish, so to speak, even while feeding him a few fish in the meantime so that he and his family don't starve to death while he's trying to learn how.

 

In general I agree with Rich's first posting on this thread. As I understand it (assuredly an imperfect understanding) the ACLU exists to protect the Constitution. There have been times when I've agreed and times that I've disagreed with the stance of the ACLU. I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of Constitutional Law and so, quite frankly, I leave it to others. This may seem irresponsible to some but I've long since given up on saving the world and so I tend to concentrate on saving the small portion that's in front of me.

People can mail a card or not, I don't care. However, in the spirit of Christmas I would only ask, "Why do something that is deliberately destructive when you could just as easily do something constructive. You don't have to sabotage the ACLU. You could choose to support another organization in which you believe. Focus your energy in a positive manner. It's a "glass half-empty, glass half-full" kind of thing.
Merry Whatever.
Jack
(please keep this thread on topic)

 

No, because I'm talking about demonstrated behavior right before my eyes, not something I think someone else may or may not be doing in their bedrooms. Big difference.

Disagreement alone isn't narrow-mindedness.

Remember, no one is talking about homosexual behavior as being hated. It is homosexuals that are being singled out.

I would single out people who participated in heterosexual behavior with Scouts, too.

Acting against people who are different--especially when that difference has no bearing on what they do in that situation--is bigotry.

 

You can be against anything you want to be against. But that doesn't give you the permission to act.

Homosexuality isn't illegal. Polygamy is.

 

Re: Re: Re: What a load of garbage...

It is funny when people who seek to exclude call people who seek to include "intolerant." What am I not tolerating, besides intolerance itself?

Disagreeing with a policy of an organization while remaining a member of it isn't hypocrasy. Nice try, but weak.

Every year I taught cadets in ROTC, I would put the gays-in-the-military question up for discussion. Lively, well-thought debates were a result. Those future officers got a chance to examine an important issue, and I hope it helped them form their opinions on the subject, whatever they concluded. That's called working within. What have you ever done like that?

Calling me a hypocrite doesn't add anything to this discussion, and isn't even relevant.

Funny how a comparision to the KKK would garner a reaction that doesn't seem to have any thought behind it. I didn't compare the Boy Scouts to the KKK. I just said that, as they're comprised, both groups ought to have the same legal standing. And the same legal restrictions. I wouldn't for a minute suggest that the BSA is anything like the KKK, even on their obvious discrimination against homosexuals. Not at all.

Demonizing me or my statements--especially without actually displaying any understanding of them--is not an effective way to put forth your views.

 

A very reasoned comment on all points.

Regarding the BSA, I would be fine if they wanted to exclude homosexuals, as long as they were not a tax-exempt organization. But I also feel that way about religion--whether or not any particular belief is anti-gay.

No public accommodation, no public funding (including tax breaks for them and their contributors), no problem. Associate with whomever you (they, actually) wish. Then it's just their desire to exclude people against the public's perception of that exclusion. If they want to go on excluding, they pay that price, which is fair.

 

Indeed.

There has been one Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that actually restricted freedom. (The Volstead Act, and all that gave us is a more-powerful underworld syndicate.) Everything else in the Constitution is about preserving--or widening--freedoms. And isn't freedom what we're all about? Unless someone else's freedom impinges on mine, who cares? And if it does, I have ample opportunity for redress through the courts and other legal means.

I don't care if a golf club excludes women, as long as it is private and doesn't receive public support. I don't agree with such a policy, but I understand the basis in freedom from which it arises. I would have no problem with the BSA's exclusionary practices under the same theory--if they were truly private. But how can a body chartered by the U.S. Congrees act in such a manner?

Do a little research into the Mormons and the BSA during the 1970's, when Church-affiliated troops would deny troop leadership to black scouts because black men could not become "saints" in the Church. The exact same situation as we now see with homosexuals. Not what people did, but what they were.

Finally, where's the harm? Can anyone, anywhere, demonstrate that young men and women are harmed in any way by having gays as scout leaders? Is there any evidence that the leaders' sexualities would become anymore of an issue--which should rightfully be not discussed at all?

I'm called a bigot because I speak out against demonstrated bigotry. It is to laugh.

 

Great points Rich!


Abner

 

No it is not. In this instance, the plan is welfare. That is the problem.

 

Do the Boy Scouts of America currently receive any Federal funding? I don't believe they do, so the Congressional "charter" is irrelevant, IMO.

In any case, revoke the charter, just to eliminate that argument. Would the operations of the BSA be any different if that happened?

As the parent of young children, I don't want homosexual people being in a position to influence my children. That's my very personal decision, and I shouldn't have to (and won't) justify it to anyone, never mind the ACLU.

Hey Rich, would you be okay with your 10 year-old daughter being instructed, in a public school, how to properly apply a condom?

 

As someone who is interested in public education, I would be interested in a specific example of this happening. In my state that probably earns a phone call to the superintendent.

Or is this just hyperbole? (Which is fine, as long as we all understand that's what it is.)


Thanks!



Tom Nixon

 

In the negative sense as the Constitution is about restricting government.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: What a load of garbage...

Give me a break, you make an inflammatory statement and then try to disassociate yourself from it by arguing semantics. For all of your disgust of politics you adopt many of its practices. You said it, and we know what you meant.

Let's be brutally honest here Rich. You and I were both members of an organization that discriminates against gays (the US military). We both accept renumeration from it today for our service. That is no more right than someone who participates in the BSA for the good things it provides even if they disagree with many of its other beliefs. Frankly, the local troops, packs etc. are almost independent orgainizations and there are actually people who are gay in the BSA just as there are gays in the military. What's more, the military is ENTIRELY funded by the government and thus our taxes.

For you to now come on here now and to so vehemently deride the practices of the BSA after having served a career in the USAF and while still receiving pay for that service is, in fact, hypocrisy. Especially since I have not seen the same comments from you on your service in the USAF. You flammed the BSA for its beliefs and practices but volunteered repeatedly to serve in an organization with the same or even more restrictive beliefs. That is textbook hypocrisy. You can feel free to crticise the BSA but you went beyond that and you know it.

Understanding your points? I understood them, you made a ridiculous comparison to express your feelings. Now you are trying to back out of it. You got caught ,accept it and move on. This disengenuous squirming and acting all offended is childish.

You have no clue of my feeling on gay issues. You dare to to assume so simply because I defend the BSA from persecution from the ACLU. That is making an assumption with too little information and is not something a PhD should do. Let me give it to you:

a. I belong to a church that accepts gay members and, I believe, even gay ministers.

b. I have no problem with gays openly serving in the military.

c. I have no problem with gays in the BSA and have said so.

Spare me your condescending rebuttals. You said it, either own up to it like a man or keep quiet.....

 

I'm sure there are many monogamous individuals whose plan is welfare. Should we ban monogamy?

 

I'll vote for that... hehehe

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What a load of garbage...

Thanks for your advice, Chris. As for how a Ph.D. should act, perhaps you're a bit early in making that assessment.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What a load of garbage...

Oooh, what a mature response.

You have the PhD but it is in DL not sociology so spare me. You are the epitomy of what is wrong with our credential conscious society today. You think that piece of paper gives you some status, give me a break.

Here is what anyone with even common knowledge of learning should know (and it is why I expect it of you), a PhD is a credential awarded after extensive research involving the testing of a hypothesis. One does not need to have one to know that. You made a judgement on me with no testing or research of any kind. That is NOT the kind of response one should expect from a PhD, period......

 

Nice dodge. I didn't think you would answer the question...

If Polygamy was made legal, would I be a bigot to morally oppose it?

BLD

 

A large percentage of monogamous individuals are NOT on welfare, unlike the polygamist communities. It is much more rare for monogamous men to marry 16 year old, 15 year old, and even younger girls.

Also Ted, I'm not proposing that we ban polygamy, there's no need to.