A lesbian mother who was ousted as a American boy scout leader because of her sexual orientation has slapped down 1980s action star Chuck Norris after he claimed gay people have no place in the scouting movement.
Jennifer Tyrrell, the former leader of her son's boy scouts troop in Bridgeport, Ohio, accused Norris of being "out of touch" after he wrote a column that accused President Obama of encouraging attempts trying to impose a "pro-gay" stance on the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) by stealth.
In a column for AmmoLand.com, a site dedicated to shooting-sports news, Norris, a well known gun-rights activist, suggested that the recent announcement by James Turley, a BSA national board member, that he will work to overturn a policy that bans gay scouts and gay scout leaders was an attempt to win favour with the Obama administration.
But the BSA's rules have faced growing criticism in recent months after Tyrrell was removed form her post in April.
Scout chiefs decided her sexual orientation "did not meet the high standards" set by the group. Her son, Cruz, was subsequently asked to leave the organisation as well.
Tyrrell challenged Norris to meet with her family and supporters to debate the issue.
She said: "Since I was ousted as a scout leader I have been flooded with support from local parents, scouts and hundreds of thousands of Americans. Chuck Norris is clearly out of touch and I'd like for him to sit down with my family and fellow scouting families who support us.
"My orientation wasn't an issue in my son's pack until the Boy Scouts made parents tell their children why their favourite den leader was no longer able to participate. With the US military, the Girls Scouts of the USA, the 4-H Club and the Boys & Girls Club among organizations that allow gay Americans the time is now to end the ban."
Nearly 300,000 people have signed an online petition on left-leaning social campaigning website Change.org calling on the BSA to change its policy of discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender scouts and leaders.
Tyrrell's case has also attracted support from the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and celebrity activists including Julianne Moore and Ellen DeGeneres.
In his article, Norris implies that the Obama administration has offered Turley political favours to carry out what the martial arts actor describes as the White House's pro-gay agenda.
"Is Turley working on his own initiative, or has the White House prodded him with perks and favours? Is it a coincidence that Turley is in tight cahoots with the White House and that he is the only BSA national board member in 100 years to oppose its pro-traditional family stance?"
Turley's statement opposing the policy, issued last month, stated: "I support the meaningful work of the Boy Scouts in preparing young people for adventure, leadership, learning and service, however the membership policy is not one I would personally endorse."
Turley, the chief executive of accountancy firm Ernst & Young, added. "I intend to continue to work from within the BSA Board to actively encourage dialogue and sustainable progress."
No matter what happens, Chuck Norris will always be superior Of course, Chuck Norris was arm wrestling with god when the universe was created, so that he has this view point shouldn't be that surprising
What I really do not understand is why her son was asked to leave the scouts?
The boy scouts policy of no homosexuals has been long known, but is it now that if you know and are related to any homosexuals you are also not allowed?
No matter what happens, Chuck Norris will always be superior Of course, Chuck Norris was arm wrestling with god when the universe was created, so that he has this view point shouldn't be that surprising
Chuck Norris is a far right mouthpiece and homophobe.
Vin Diesel plays dungeons and dragons and is Riddick.
Diesel > Norris...
Actually, know what... even Russell Brand is > Norris.
Im curious why people give a gak what a celebrity has to say about a certain issue. Now if he were running for a political office or something along those lines, then sure. But he isnt is he? So why do I give a damn about his moral view points? He must be a politician though, I agree with part of what he says (gun rights) and want to club him over the rest
I've read Chuck Norris' autobiography, and while I respect and admire the hardships he overcame in his youth, he is a bit of a tosser when it comes to his socio-political views.
Still, his opinion that gays have no place in scouting, while douchey, is not something he can/should be sued over IMO.
The Boy Scouts being sued for this is a different matter.
Ma55ter_fett wrote:I personally find it more outrageous that the upcoming Expendables 2 will be rated PG-13 because Chuck Norris doesn't like people swearing in movies.
errr. What?
I know why though that Jet Li wasn't allowed into the Expendables now! Its because he was good friends with Bruce Lee. So Chuck norris doesn't want anyone remembering who was the only man to beat him in combat. Bruce Lee!
Other than that.
I actually know a scout whose parents are lesbians. He became an Eagle Scout. Great kid. you can't discriminate the kid because the parents are gay. Thats stupid.
Ma55ter_fett wrote:I personally find it more outrageous that the upcoming Expendables 2 will be rated PG-13 because Chuck Norris doesn't like people swearing in movies.
errr. What?
I know why though that Jet Li wasn't allowed into the Expendables now! Its because he was good friends with Bruce Lee. So Chuck norris doesn't want anyone remembering who was the only man to beat him in combat. Bruce Lee!
Other than that.
I actually know a scout whose parents are lesbians. He became an Eagle Scout. Great kid. you can't discriminate the kid because the parents are gay. Thats stupid.
“In Expendables 2, there was a lot of vulgar dialogue in the screenplay. For this reason, many young people wouldn’t be able to watch this. But I don’t play in movies like this. Due to that I said I won’t be a part of that if the hardcore language is not erased. Producers accepted my conditions and the movie will be classified in the category of PG-13.”
Ma55ter_fett wrote:I personally find it more outrageous that the upcoming Expendables 2 will be rated PG-13 because Chuck Norris doesn't like people swearing in movies.
errr. What?
I know why though that Jet Li wasn't allowed into the Expendables now! Its because he was good friends with Bruce Lee. So Chuck norris doesn't want anyone remembering who was the only man to beat him in combat. Bruce Lee!
Other than that.
I actually know a scout whose parents are lesbians. He became an Eagle Scout. Great kid. you can't discriminate the kid because the parents are gay. Thats stupid.
“In Expendables 2, there was a lot of vulgar dialogue in the screenplay. For this reason, many young people wouldn’t be able to watch this. But I don’t play in movies like this. Due to that I said I won’t be a part of that if the hardcore language is not erased. Producers accepted my conditions and the movie will be classified in the category of PG-13.”
Eh too bad for the kids in my opinion. I am 18 so it doesn't really affect that much just means I have little kids there -.-
I find it interesting that Chuck Norris is talking about "young people" going to see his movie.
He does realize that he's an icon of the 80s and 90s, and that most people who would be interested in seeing his movies, especially people who will go see a movie because Chuck Norris is in it at this point are going to be at the very least in their mid to late 20s, right? I mean, if he doesn't want to be in a movie with a lot of cursing because he doesn' t like cursing, that'd be a slightly different matter.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:Also why are we asking Chuck Norris' opinion on boy scout affairs?
The internet created a joke format in which Chuck Norris' tough guy image was parodied with stupidly over the top tough guy claims. Chuck Norris confused being in these jokes with actually being relevant to the world, and started talking about stuff. Unfortunately the stuff that came out of his mouth was lovable, clueless Dad kind of stuff, but some pretty hateful bigotry, and he basically caused the jokes to stop being funny.
Mind you, I'm fairly convinced Chuck Norris never realised we only watched his movies in the 80s either because we were 7 years old and completely uncritical consumers of any action movies, or because we were teenagers and had a heavy sense of irony. I think he probably thinks the Missing in Action movies were good.
Cushing and Bruce Lee references already made. I am clearly not needed.
------------
That said, BSA is a private organization and can be jackasses if they want, but it's only to the detriment of their members and of the United States if they do. Gay kids and parents can and should benefit from Scouting, and the Troops can and should benefit from exposure to and bonding with their gay peers and neighbors. I'm pleased to see them start to change their stance.
KingCracker wrote:Im curious why people give a gak what a celebrity has to say about a certain issue. Now if he were running for a political office or something along those lines, then sure. But he isnt is he? So why do I give a damn about his moral view points? He must be a politician though, I agree with part of what he says (gun rights) and want to club him over the rest
Unlike, say, Snooki's opinion, Chuck Norris is fairly politically active both with his celebrity and money, so in this case that would be why people would/should care.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Chuck Norris is a far right mouthpiece and homophobe.
I am a far left supporter who happens to be friends with a number of gay people, and I say that it's impossible for Norris to be awesome any more. He's gone too far by saying some people are worth less than others simply because they a) have less money or b) have a different sexual orientation. Neither of these can be helped: you're born with them or without them. This means that to be prejudice against either is as bad as being prejudice against someone because of the colour of their skin, and I would not be surprised if Norris has this prejudice as well. He is officially now Uncool.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Chuck Norris is a far right mouthpiece and homophobe.
I am a far left supporter who happens to be friends with a number of gay people, and I say that it's impossible for Norris to be awesome any more. He's gone too far by saying some people are worth less than others simply because they a) have less money or b) have a different sexual orientation. Neither of these can be helped: you're born with them or without them. This means that to be prejudice against either is as bad as being prejudice against someone because of the colour of their skin, and I would not be surprised if Norris has this prejudice as well. He is officially now Uncool.
Are you saying that having money is something you are born with...? And that you cant change it....?
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:What I really do not understand is why her son was asked to leave the scouts?
The boy scouts policy of no homosexuals has been long known, but is it now that if you know and are related to any homosexuals you are also not allowed?
He wasn't. She was asked to quit being a scout leader, got her panties in a wad and pulled him out. This is an old story.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Chuck Norris is a far right mouthpiece and homophobe.
I am a far left supporter who happens to be friends with a number of gay people, and I say that it's impossible for Norris to be awesome any more. He's gone too far by saying some people are worth less than others simply because they a) have less money or b) have a different sexual orientation. Neither of these can be helped: you're born with them or without them. This means that to be prejudice against either is as bad as being prejudice against someone because of the colour of their skin, and I would not be surprised if Norris has this prejudice as well. He is officially now Uncool.
Are you saying that having money is something you are born with...? And that you cant change it....?
Confused.
No. What I am saying is that you can't change it though. It's quite a deep philosophical thought, but look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance Combine that with the idea that you are born with, e.g. a talent for being good at maths, a large amount of greed, and some caring enough parents to get you into a good position for getting a job. You then go into banking and make a fortune. That was all you, right? I mean, it was you that worked hard when you were driven by greed, yeah? And anyone can do math, you just got to try!
But that's not the case. If you're not born good at maths, you can't get a job in banking, and can't make that money. In face if you have a naturally low IQ, chances are you won't have as much money at the end as someone who was born with a better brain. It's all luck, whether you're rich. If you believe in fate, you will understand this. If you believe in free will it will be harder to get your head round, but it all boils down to where you start off and what talents you have, what parents you have, and so on. Say you're born to a gypsy family, and don't have any amazing talents. Are you saying you have even the remotest chance at getting rich? Because if so, you're kidding yourself pretty hard.
Sorry if I'm introducing too much hard philosophy in a gaming forum, but it wasn't my idea to start a politics thread.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Chuck Norris is a far right mouthpiece and homophobe.
I am a far left supporter who happens to be friends with a number of gay people, and I say that it's impossible for Norris to be awesome any more. He's gone too far by saying some people are worth less than others simply because they a) have less money or b) have a different sexual orientation. Neither of these can be helped: you're born with them or without them. This means that to be prejudice against either is as bad as being prejudice against someone because of the colour of their skin, and I would not be surprised if Norris has this prejudice as well. He is officially now Uncool.
Are you saying that having money is something you are born with...? And that you cant change it....?
Confused.
No. What I am saying is that you can't change it though. It's quite a deep philosophical thought, but look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance Combine that with the idea that you are born with, e.g. a talent for being good at maths, a large amount of greed, and some caring enough parents to get you into a good position for getting a job. You then go into banking and make a fortune. That was all you, right? I mean, it was you that worked hard when you were driven by greed, yeah? And anyone can do math, you just got to try!
But that's not the case. If you're not born good at maths, you can't get a job in banking, and can't make that money. In face if you have a naturally low IQ, chances are you won't have as much money at the end as someone who was born with a better brain. It's all luck, whether you're rich. If you believe in fate, you will understand this. If you believe in free will it will be harder to get your head round, but it all boils down to where you start off and what talents you have, what parents you have, and so on. Say you're born to a gypsy family, and don't have any amazing talents. Are you saying you have even the remotest chance at getting rich? Because if so, you're kidding yourself pretty hard.
Sorry if I'm introducing too much hard philosophy in a gaming forum, but it wasn't my idea to start a politics thread.
Yes, having a natural talent for something means that you are going to be good at it, theres nothing new there. Neither is having good contacts to get you started off, the basis on your continuing success (or not, as the case may be) is down to your own performance however (so long as you are in the private sector, dont even get me started on the public sector...), not what you are born with. Yes, there are many places where this isnt true, sue to favouratism etc., but there are also many places where it is true.
Does hard work count as a talent? What about being thrifty? Because using the two together can, and has, netted many people vast sums just because they work hard at a reasonable job, and spend their money wisely.
Back on point, i specifically mentined money, which is what you did as well. How can money (or a lack thereof) be in any way linked to either: What you personal worth is (you said CN was calling people worthless becaus ethey were poor) Or, a persons sexual orientation?
I dont see how you are drawing a parallel here...
And actually, judging by todays standards in banking, ANYONE can get a job as a banker . also, please dont bring gypsies into this, there are some INCREDIBLY rich gypsies all over the country (some of whom have been on MY Big Fat Gypsy Wedding, but i cant remember their names, darn).
Dont apologies, discussions are fun and exactly what the OT forum is for
Revenent Reiko wrote:Yes, having a natural talent for something means that you are going to be good at it, theres nothing new there. Neither is having good contacts to get you started off, the basis on your continuing success (or not, as the case may be) is down to your own performance however (so long as you are in the private sector, dont even get me started on the public sector...), not what you are born with. Yes, there are many places where this isnt true, sue to favouratism etc., but there are also many places where it is true.
Does hard work count as a talent? What about being thrifty? Because using the two together can, and has, netted many people vast sums just because they work hard at a reasonable job, and spend their money wisely.
Back on point, i specifically mentined money, which is what you did as well. How can money (or a lack thereof) be in any way linked to either:
What you personal worth is (you said CN was calling people worthless becaus ethey were poor)
Or, a persons sexual orientation?
I dont see how you are drawing a parallel here...
And actually, judging by todays standards in banking, ANYONE can get a job as a banker . also, please dont bring gypsies into this, there are some INCREDIBLY rich gypsies all over the country (some of whom have been on MY Big Fat Gypsy Wedding, but i cant remember their names, darn).
Dont apologies, discussions are fun and exactly what the OT forum is for
Ok, I was linking in money to say how Norris was wrong on another level as well, in that he is far right. Perhaps it doesn't have a lot to do with the thread, ok.
Hard work, of course, doesn't count as talent. It is, in fact, caused by something that is luck, however: Strong will. You won't believe me to start with, no-one ever does, so let me go off on a tangent to explain. Of the people that go to top-level universities, almost all are first-born. Want to know why? Because naturally, and I'm not sure why nor how, but naturally first-born children have stronger willpower than those born after them. Perhaps it's the belief that it's down to them to carry the family forwards. I don't know. It's just the way it is. But looking at this, can you say that hard work is purely a person's choice, when first-born children put in so much more effort than those that come after them? Perhaps they all happen to make that choice, but it must be something to do with when they were born, yes? It can't be one massive coinsidence that happent to affect hundreds of thousands of people. Therefore there is chance involved: Those born second or after naturally have a disadvantage and are less likely to do well or make a lot of money.
Ok, that's one small example. "I want more examples," I hear you say. "Ok," I reply. "More examples you shall get."
I hope you trust the guardian as a reliable source? Because here is another sign that it's pure chance. This isn't being sexist, it's just the way it is. We may start off equal, but girls put in more effort. You can't say that's simply a fair choice. Perhaps they have more to inspire them? I don't know, as before. It's just that it comes down to a 50/50 chance whether you'll be in the "naturally going to do better" group, or the "naturally going to do worse" group. And if you're a boy, tough. Getting it changed can only happen after most/all your education is finished, so by then it'll be too late. Don't argue with that much evidence.
So you see, yes, you can decide to work hard. Yes, that decision's all yours, except... if you're a girl, you're more likely to make one decision. Oh, and if you're first born, you're more likely to make that same decision. So of course, it's not chance at all, is it?
p_gray99 wrote:Ok, I was linking in money to say how Norris was wrong on another level as well, in that he is far right. Perhaps it doesn't have a lot to do with the thread, ok.
Hard work, of course, doesn't count as talent. It is, in fact, caused by something that is luck, however: Strong will. You won't believe me to start with, no-one ever does, so let me go off on a tangent to explain. Of the people that go to top-level universities, almost all are first-born. Want to know why? Because naturally, and I'm not sure why nor how, but naturally first-born children have stronger willpower than those born after them. Perhaps it's the belief that it's down to them to carry the family forwards. I don't know. It's just the way it is. But looking at this, can you say that hard work is purely a person's choice, when first-born children put in so much more effort than those that come after them? Perhaps they all happen to make that choice, but it must be something to do with when they were born, yes? It can't be one massive coinsidence that happent to affect hundreds of thousands of people. Therefore there is chance involved: Those born second or after naturally have a disadvantage and are less likely to do well or make a lot of money.
Totally disagree.
Strong Will is not the same as Hard Work. I work hard at my job, but that is due to Pride more than anything else (not saying i dont have a strong will as well, but its no the same thing).
Also, as to your example, how many children in the UK are single-children? ie, have no siblings? Because that scews your data. Also, you are missing peer pressure, parental pressure, loyalty (to family for example, knowing that a degree should get you a better job, therefore more money to help your parents later on in life...), along with a multitude of other factors that affect university attendance. I am the first born, i know. MY little sister is also at uni, and in fact, decided she wanted to go before i did...
Ok, that's one small example. "I want more examples," I hear you say. "Ok," I reply. "More examples you shall get."
I hope you trust the guardian as a reliable source? Because here is another sign that it's pure chance. This isn't being sexist, it's just the way it is. We may start off equal, but girls put in more effort. You can't say that's simply a fair choice. Perhaps they have more to inspire them? I don't know, as before. It's just that it comes down to a 50/50 chance whether you'll be in the "naturally going to do better" group, or the "naturally going to do worse" group. And if you're a boy, tough. Getting it changed can only happen after most/all your education is finished, so by then it'll be too late. Don't argue with that much evidence.
Yes, the Guardian is a reliable source. However, its a non-issue. Its been known for many years that girls have the same, if not greater, aptitude as boys when it comes to academics. Its not even about effort, i know plenty of extremely clever girls who put bugger all effort in to their work. At least a part of it is down to how boys and girls mature as far as im aware....(correct me if im wrong of course, im always happier knowing the truth). i also dont really agree with the exam systme in this country, its not about whether you uderstand anything anymore, its how well you can memorise the exact words and phrases that are spouted at you and then regurgitate them back onto the page....thats a memory test, not a test of knowledge.
So you see, yes, you can decide to work hard. Yes, that decision's all yours, except... if you're a girl, you're more likely to make one decision. Oh, and if you're first born, you're more likely to make that same decision. So of course, it's not chance at all, is it?
We are on a differnet subject after all of this btw I do agree that some people are smarter than others, are more dedicated, or [insert characteristic here] than others from birth. But i also believe that being a girl, or first born makes little to no difference.
Revenent Reiko wrote:
Strong Will is not the same as Hard Work. I work hard at my job, but that is due to Pride more than anything else (not saying i dont have a strong will as well, but its no the same thing).
Also, as to your example, how many children in the UK are single-children? ie, have no siblings? Because that scews your data. Also, you are missing peer pressure, parental pressure, loyalty (to family for example, knowing that a degree should get you a better job, therefore more money to help your parents later on in life...), along with a multitude of other factors that affect university attendance. I am the first born, i know. MY little sister is also at uni, and in fact, decided she wanted to go before i did...
Strong will is what leads to hard work. If you have no will, you will inevitably not work hard, as you can't be bothered. If you have strong will, you will inevitably work hard, as you know it will be better for you in the long run. And I never said that all first-born get to university while no second-born get to university. It's just a general trend, of course there will be exceptions.
Its been known for many years that girls have the same, if not greater, aptitude as boys when it comes to academics. Its not even about effort, i know plenty of extremely clever girls who put bugger all effort in to their work. At least a part of it is down to how boys and girls mature as far as im aware....(correct me if im wrong of course, im always happier knowing the truth). i also dont really agree with the exam systme in this country, its not about whether you uderstand anything anymore, its how well you can memorise the exact words and phrases that are spouted at you and then regurgitate them back onto the page....thats a memory test, not a test of knowledge.
As far as I care, it doesn't matter what causes them to do better. It's just that girls are doing better than boys, meaning that there must be some inequality in what's causing them to do well, meaning that half the population starts with a better chance than the other half before they're even born. Hell, they've got a better chance before they're even recognised by most people as humans!
We are on a differnet subject after all of this btw I do agree that some people are smarter than others, are more dedicated, or [insert characteristic here] than others from birth. But i also believe that being a girl, or first born makes little to no difference.
Perhaps it makes little difference. It cannot make no difference; if that were the case then boys would be exactly equal to girls. But all this is simply boiling down to one thing: People won't have an equal chance, whatever you do. Some people will have better chances of becoming rich than others and there's nothing we can do other than treat everyone equally, because wherever someone is, it's probably not their fault that they are there.
Revenent Reiko wrote:
Strong Will is not the same as Hard Work. I work hard at my job, but that is due to Pride more than anything else (not saying i dont have a strong will as well, but its no the same thing).
Also, as to your example, how many children in the UK are single-children? ie, have no siblings? Because that scews your data. Also, you are missing peer pressure, parental pressure, loyalty (to family for example, knowing that a degree should get you a better job, therefore more money to help your parents later on in life...), along with a multitude of other factors that affect university attendance. I am the first born, i know. MY little sister is also at uni, and in fact, decided she wanted to go before i did...
Strong will is what leads to hard work. If you have no will, you will inevitably not work hard, as you can't be bothered. If you have strong will, you will inevitably work hard, as you know it will be better for you in the long run. And I never said that all first-born get to university while no second-born get to university. It's just a general trend, of course there will be exceptions.
Not true, having a strong will [i[can[/i] lead to hard work, but it is much more easily engendered by interest. Being interested in something has nothing to do with your willpower, but makes a HUGE differnce to whether or not you put effort into it. Having a strong will will also not necessarily affect your ambition, which is what will cause you to have that forethought to be able to be better in the future by putting the effort in now.
I know, that wasnt what i meant, i was simply saying that my sister decided she wanted to go to Uni before i did, therefore bucking the trend. I was also saying that your belief that more first borns go to Uni is/could be biased due to there being parents who only have one child.
Its been known for many years that girls have the same, if not greater, aptitude as boys when it comes to academics. Its not even about effort, i know plenty of extremely clever girls who put bugger all effort in to their work. At least a part of it is down to how boys and girls mature as far as im aware....(correct me if im wrong of course, im always happier knowing the truth). i also dont really agree with the exam systme in this country, its not about whether you uderstand anything anymore, its how well you can memorise the exact words and phrases that are spouted at you and then regurgitate them back onto the page....thats a memory test, not a test of knowledge.
As far as I care, it doesn't matter what causes them to do better. It's just that girls are doing better than boys, meaning that there must be some inequality in what's causing them to do well, meaning that half the population starts with a better chance than the other half before they're even born. Hell, they've got a better chance before they're even recognised by most people as humans!
That will bias your view. Not caring about one of the factors that affects the data is a serious mistake, and could cause you to make incorrect conclusions based upon that data. The cause is often the more telling thing than the effect i find. GCSE's are also not the most effective data set to look at, as they are less important to the job market than, say, A-levels, or Degrees. Not saying they arent important at all, just less so.
you will also find a lot of people (not myself) who disagree that women have a greater chance
We are on a differnet subject after all of this btw I do agree that some people are smarter than others, are more dedicated, or [insert characteristic here] than others from birth. But i also believe that being a girl, or first born makes little to no difference.
Perhaps it makes little difference. It cannot make no difference; if that were the case then boys would be exactly equal to girls. But all this is simply boiling down to one thing: People won't have an equal chance, whatever you do. Some people will have better chances of becoming rich than others and there's nothing we can do other than treat everyone equally, because wherever someone is, it's probably not their fault that they are there.
Agreed, it cannot make no difference, that is simply a turn of phrase. I do think that that difference is largely mitigated by an individuals approach to life/work/whatever. Agreed, not everyone has the same chances, but its those differences, those different chances, and the differint decisions that each person makes that make life what it is. If everyone had the same chances, made the same decisions, led the same life, then we wouldnt be human...
I am also in the 'treat everyone the same' camp, but that is mainly due to being Christian, and firmly believing in 'treat others as you yourself would be treated'
The other thing about this thread, the title is misleading. There are no gay rights when it comes to a private club like the boy scouts, churches, the local needlepoint and anarchy group, whatever.
A private and or religous organization has the right by law, and by the consitution to discriminate in its membership any way they want.
If a group says "no gays", "no women", "no whites", "no blacks" "no jews" this is within thier right to do so.
What I am amazed at, is that no one for the last 30 some odd years since the boyscout thing became a hot button issue, tried to start up a group to compete with said boy scouts.
Bakerofish wrote:they kicked out a Lesbian from the BSA
a lesbian?
a person who has no sexual interest in little boys whatsoever?
*throws hands up in the air in frustration*
Are you a scout? Why do you care? The whole issue doesn't have squat to do with rope knots, proper fire making, or the incredibly uber competitive nature of the soap box derbies. (I mean seriously. You're going to tell me that 7 year old snot nosed rat behind you built this aerodynamic wonder that you had tested in a wind tunnel...)
On the positive you can get scuba certified as a badge at camp in girl scouts. GC's next goal. I have promised that if she and SWMBO can get me a whole rack of shotgun shell bang sticks I can carry, that I'll go scuba diving with them.
Divemaster: Did I just see a diver go by in hockey mask, machete, and escorted by two wiener dogs with their own tiny dive gear? Did his tank really say "BRING IT SHARK MOFOS!"? I've got to check the air regulator when I get out. . .
I am comfortable dealing with known gay people in the Boyscouts. Their sexual orientation has nothing to do with tying ropes and digging holes in dirt for shelter like you said.
the problem I have here is that the BSA has had problems with "predators" of one form or another.
im just saying that the scout master being lesbian leaves one less thing to worry about.
@malus: Thanks for the defend but he missed it the first time. I dont think repeating it would help.
Someone needs to tell these idiots running the BSA that it's the 21st century.
Matters on the council Really. NEI Allows gay and lesibans. I don't know about the southern councils. The National Council I don't know if they have an input on this. Its funny because these guys aren't following the scout law or scout oath. AT ALL. /reasoning
Bakerofish wrote:Boy Scouts of the Philippines actually.
So no. Again, why do you care?
He is a member of the World Scout Association. He is a Scout.
It is in the Scout law that a Scout is a brother to all Scouts, so Bakerofish has every right to speak on this subject as an American Scout does.
Like I do. I can talk about this issue openly. The Councils need to improve. They need to make a better environment for scouts, but also expose them to other types of people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bakerofish wrote:so if you're not a US Boy Scout stfu?
really fraz?
All scouts are welcome to discuss. If your a scout, your a scout. Kinda like being a marine, once a Boy Scout/Eagle Scout/Queen Scout always a Boy Scout/Eagle Scout/Queen Scout
Bakerofish wrote:so if you're not a US Boy Scout stfu?
really fraz?
Obviously Fraz wasn't in the Scouts. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of brotherhood with all scouts regardless of nationality, gender, religion, sexuality etc.
Bakerofish wrote:so if you're not a US Boy Scout stfu?
really fraz?
I just said per Dakka you're free to speak. I am just constantly mazed that people have opinions on matters that don't especially concenr them, especially when they cut a holier than thou attitude (not you, in general) or its about some bs only tangentially related to the organization itself.
Frankly I'm sick of the whole gay this or gay that or gays are evil or gays aren't evil. Its like the whole MSM culture has gotten obsessed when none of it matters as much as a cup of coffee to most people.
1. They're here. They're queer. Get used to it.
2 (95% of America) duh!!! we got used to it 10 years ago. The whole issue is so 2002. More importantly whats for supper?
Bakerofish wrote:so if you're not a US Boy Scout stfu?
really fraz?
I just said per Dakka you're free to speak. I am just constantly mazed that people have opinions on matters that don't especially concenr them, especially when they cut a holier than thou attitude (not you, in general) or its about some bs only tangentially related to the organization itself.
Frankly I'm sick of the whole gay this or gay that or gays are evil or gays aren't evil. Its like the whole MSM culture has gotten obsessed when none of it matters as much as a cup of coffee to most people.
1. They're here. They're queer. Get used to it.
2 (95% of America) duh!!! we got used to it 10 years ago. The whole issue is so 2002. More importantly whats for supper?
I didn't realise they had the same legal partnership rights throughout America. Excellent!
Bakerofish wrote:so if you're not a US Boy Scout stfu?
really fraz?
Obviously Fraz wasn't in the Scouts. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of brotherhood with all scouts regardless of nationality, gender, religion, sexuality etc.
Correct. Dad of a boy scout. Official DAWG as well. Girl scouts takes the position that we welcome everyone...as long as they can sell cookies. "Want to buy some cookies?" (pulls axe from behind back) "So that was fifteen boxes then?"
Brotherhood is different, I'm a firm believer in brotherhood... of canines. Bortherhood with people? No way... Dogs rule people drool!
To be honest I don't care about what Chuck Norris thinks about gay people.
But I do care what the council thinks. As I would probably tell a few other councilmen about the problem with the fact gay people should be able to have their children join BSA
im with asherian here...chuck isnt the issue. The fact that the kid was asked to leave the Boy scouts is the biggest issue for me. Im sure theyve thought of a reason to kick him out that follows every rule except the spirit of the organization itself.
Revenent Reiko wrote:Not true, having a strong will can lead to hard work, but it is much more easily engendered by interest. Being interested in something has nothing to do with your willpower, but makes a HUGE differnce to whether or not you put effort into it. Having a strong will will also not necessarily affect your ambition, which is what will cause you to have that forethought to be able to be better in the future by putting the effort in now.
Ok, a strong will won't lead to hard work all the time, but a lack of willpower will definitely lead away from working hard. There's no way you can work hard without having a strong enough will. It's just something you need. And ok, a strong will may not affect your ambition. But different people have different levels of ambition, and I reckon that's another thing you're born with. So it's coming back to the same point that it's far less to do with a person how well they do than people would think.
That will bias your view. Not caring about one of the factors that affects the data is a serious mistake, and could cause you to make incorrect conclusions based upon that data. The cause is often the more telling thing than the effect i find. GCSE's are also not the most effective data set to look at, as they are less important to the job market than, say, A-levels, or Degrees. Not saying they arent important at all, just less so.
Ok, I disagree with you here. You worry about what the factors are that cause it, I only care about the end result, said result being that girls stand a better chance in society than boys and therefore it's not about what the individual does and far more about what they were always going to do as soon as they were conceived. It's not about why there's that difference, it's just that there is that inherent difference and you can't do anything about it.
And if GCSE results aren't good enough for you, try this: A nice look at plenty of results dating all the way back to 1950. Enough data for you?
you will also find a lot of people (not myself) who disagree that women have a greater chance
So people are blinding themselves to facts? Why should I care if they decide to make themselves stupid?
I do think that that difference is largely mitigated by an individuals approach to life/work/whatever. Agreed, not everyone has the same chances, but its those differences, those different chances, and the different decisions that each person makes that make life what it is. If everyone had the same chances, made the same decisions, led the same life, then we wouldn't be human...
I am also in the 'treat everyone the same' camp, but that is mainly due to being Christian, and firmly believing in 'treat others as you yourself would be treated'
I also am in the "Treat everyone the same" camp. That's why this whole debate started, with me saying we shouldn't say people are worth less because they have less money. And It's purely your opinion that the individual attitude has more affect than their situation. I could go on for hours listing different situations which give some people a better opportunity than others: The two I listed were simply very common factors. And, in fact, if you look at my google docs link from my last post, you will see why I believe that people actually can't have any options, nor can they in fact do anything but react to their circumstances. I won't argue against you on this issue until you have read it however; that would simply be futile.
im with asherian here...chuck isnt the issue. The fact that the kid was asked to leave the Boy scouts is the biggest issue for me. Im sure theyve thought of a reason to kick him out that follows every rule except the spirit of the organization itself.
They did the kid a favor. He can do kid things now instead of being forced to earn a hatespeech badge and be forced to go camping with creepy pack masters...
Bakerofish wrote:tell me again how this doesnt concern me Fraz.
and tell me how it concerns you.
I'd like to see ya type that down.
Make me understand
Note I've not said anything about the issue itself.
Plus I am a Texan. My wisdom is thus boundless.
There is only two things texans have knowledge of, BBQ and Guns.
(P.S. I love texas, i know you are not all hilbillies)
But Really, i left scouts because of the high rate of religion in it and because of the hypocrisy in it. Some of the scout masters where major hunter and gun owners, yet always spoke of the sanctity of life and to make sure we do no harm to the enviroment.
Bakerofish wrote:tell me again how this doesnt concern me Fraz.
and tell me how it concerns you.
I'd like to see ya type that down.
Make me understand
Note I've not said anything about the issue itself.
Plus I am a Texan. My wisdom is thus boundless.
There is only two things texans have knowledge of, BBQ and Guns.
(P.S. I love texas, i know you are not all hilbillies)
But Really, i left scouts because of the high rate of religion in it and because of the hypocrisy in it. Some of the scout masters where major hunter and gun owners, yet always spoke of the sanctity of life and to make sure we do no harm to the enviroment.
And deep sea development.
And space development.
True high tech not computer box crap.
Mirroring what everyone else has said, why should I care what Chuck Norris thinks? Everyone knows the BSA doesn't allow or support gays/ homosexuals and that is their right as an independent company that isn't government funded. I think it's short sighted and preaches a certain life philosophy that I find disgusting, but if you don't like it, form an organization that is more comprehensive and does a wider variety of things.
We get so bogged down in religious or lack there of discussions when we really should be focused on trying to work together. I could care less what you believe, as long as you aren't an donkey-cave and force your religion upon me. I don't force Atheism on people.
Ma55ter_fett wrote:I personally find it more outrageous that the upcoming Expendables 2 will be rated PG-13 because Chuck Norris doesn't like people swearing in movies.
It wont. Sly said he was considering it for a bit (probably just to be a bit diplomatic) but it is going to be R18+
Great Deceiver wrote:Mirroring what everyone else has said, why should I care what Chuck Norris thinks? Everyone knows the BSA doesn't allow or support gays/ homosexuals and that is their right as an independent company that isn't government funded. I think it's short sighted and preaches a certain life philosophy that I find disgusting, but if you don't like it, form an organization that is more comprehensive and does a wider variety of things.
We get so bogged down in religious or lack there of discussions when we really should be focused on trying to work together. I could care less what you believe, as long as you aren't an donkey-cave and force your religion upon me. I don't force Atheism on people.
That sort of live and let live viewpoint has no place here!
im with asherian here...chuck isnt the issue. The fact that the kid was asked to leave the Boy scouts is the biggest issue for me. Im sure theyve thought of a reason to kick him out that follows every rule except the spirit of the organization itself.
Just speculation on my part, but since it was his mother that got booted for being a lesbian, I imagine he had a lot to say about the issue to the other scouts and the leadership.
Seriously, if it was your mom, could you be out with the troop, tying square knots like nothing happened?
im with asherian here...chuck isnt the issue. The fact that the kid was asked to leave the Boy scouts is the biggest issue for me. Im sure theyve thought of a reason to kick him out that follows every rule except the spirit of the organization itself.
They did the kid a favor. He can do kid things now instead of being forced to earn a hatespeech badge and be forced to go camping with creepy pack masters...
Err. Thats not what any Boy Scout actually goes through.
im with asherian here...chuck isnt the issue. The fact that the kid was asked to leave the Boy scouts is the biggest issue for me. Im sure theyve thought of a reason to kick him out that follows every rule except the spirit of the organization itself.
They did the kid a favor. He can do kid things now instead of being forced to earn a hatespeech badge and be forced to go camping with creepy pack masters...
Err. Thats not what any Boy Scout actually goes through.
Very true. As far as the gay issue goes, I wouldn't want my son going off to the woods to share a tent with a gay boy any more than I'd want him sharing a tent with a straight girl his age.
The reason I mention this is the fact that we had gay kids in our area that would make unwelcome advances on the straight kids.
im with asherian here...chuck isnt the issue. The fact that the kid was asked to leave the Boy scouts is the biggest issue for me. Im sure theyve thought of a reason to kick him out that follows every rule except the spirit of the organization itself.
They did the kid a favor. He can do kid things now instead of being forced to earn a hatespeech badge and be forced to go camping with creepy pack masters...
Err. Thats not what any Boy Scout actually goes through.
Indeed, going camping with lots of creepy crawlies, thats a different story.
GC had three scorpions in her bunkhouse. If you think spiders are bad, get a scorpion up close and personal. heebie geebies!!!!
im with asherian here...chuck isnt the issue. The fact that the kid was asked to leave the Boy scouts is the biggest issue for me. Im sure theyve thought of a reason to kick him out that follows every rule except the spirit of the organization itself.
They did the kid a favor. He can do kid things now instead of being forced to earn a hatespeech badge and be forced to go camping with creepy pack masters...
Err. Thats not what any Boy Scout actually goes through.
Indeed, going camping with lots of creepy crawlies, thats a different story.
GC had three scorpions in her bunkhouse. If you think spiders are bad, get a scorpion up close and personal. heebie geebies!!!!
Eurgh, scorpions. All the eight legged horror of a spider, with the terrifying addition of a stinger and pincers.
im with asherian here...chuck isnt the issue. The fact that the kid was asked to leave the Boy scouts is the biggest issue for me. Im sure theyve thought of a reason to kick him out that follows every rule except the spirit of the organization itself.
They did the kid a favor. He can do kid things now instead of being forced to earn a hatespeech badge and be forced to go camping with creepy pack masters...
Err. Thats not what any Boy Scout actually goes through.
Indeed, going camping with lots of creepy crawlies, thats a different story.
GC had three scorpions in her bunkhouse. If you think spiders are bad, get a scorpion up close and personal. heebie geebies!!!!
Eurgh, scorpions. All the eight legged horror of a spider, with the terrifying addition of a stinger and pincers.
But the advantage of being able to set up a sporting event, Scorpionic Gladiators!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:
CT GAMER wrote:
Bakerofish wrote:so nothing then. okay.
im with asherian here...chuck isnt the issue. The fact that the kid was asked to leave the Boy scouts is the biggest issue for me. Im sure theyve thought of a reason to kick him out that follows every rule except the spirit of the organization itself.
They did the kid a favor. He can do kid things now instead of being forced to earn a hatespeech badge and be forced to go camping with creepy pack masters...
Err. Thats not what any Boy Scout actually goes through.
Very true. As far as the gay issue goes, I wouldn't want my son going off to the woods to share a tent with a gay boy any more than I'd want him sharing a tent with a straight girl his age.
The reason I mention this is the fact that we had gay kids in our area that would make unwelcome advances on the straight kids.
How old is your son? Also, some gay kids didn't know about "no means no" or respecting peoples personal tastes so no gay child is to be trusted?
If someone made advances on your son then all your son has to do is say that he's not interested. If that person continued then your boy takes it up with the Leader, who can take appropriate action (calling the childs parents, moving them to a different patrol etc.).
Relapse wrote:
Very true. As far as the gay issue goes, I wouldn't want my son going off to the woods to share a tent with a gay boy any more than I'd want him sharing a tent with a straight girl his age.
The reason I mention this is the fact that we had gay kids in our area that would make unwelcome advances on the straight kids.
You mean to say that after the straight kids have said "no thanks" the homosexual kids keep making advances? They have to try at least once if they see someone they are interested in.
Thats how things work with straight people too, boy asks girl out, she says no. A day later guy asks girl out again, rinse repeat.
How is this a problem except the straight kids have no idea how to say "thank you, that is very flattering, but I am not interested"?
Relapse wrote:
Very true. As far as the gay issue goes, I wouldn't want my son going off to the woods to share a tent with a gay boy any more than I'd want him sharing a tent with a straight girl his age.
The reason I mention this is the fact that we had gay kids in our area that would make unwelcome advances on the straight kids.
You mean to say that after the straight kids have said "no thanks" the homosexual kids keep making advances? They have to try at least once if they see someone they are interested in.
Thats how things work with straight people too, boy asks girl out, she says no. A day later guy asks girl out again, rinse repeat.
How is this a problem except the straight kids have no idea how to say "thank you, that is very flattering, but I am not interested"?
No gak sherlock. He also said no coed sleepovers. Same idea.
Relapse wrote:
Very true. As far as the gay issue goes, I wouldn't want my son going off to the woods to share a tent with a gay boy any more than I'd want him sharing a tent with a straight girl his age.
The reason I mention this is the fact that we had gay kids in our area that would make unwelcome advances on the straight kids.
You mean to say that after the straight kids have said "no thanks" the homosexual kids keep making advances? They have to try at least once if they see someone they are interested in.
Thats how things work with straight people too, boy asks girl out, she says no. A day later guy asks girl out again, rinse repeat.
How is this a problem except the straight kids have no idea how to say "thank you, that is very flattering, but I am not interested"?
That is correct in some instances, the gay kids didn't realize that no means no, and it led to some fights.We are dealing with kids starting at age 12 of whom some were raised to learn that consistant begging gets them what they want. As I also pointed out, I wouldn't want my boy sharing a tent alone all nihjt with a girl his age, either.
Relapse - fair enough, I was just checking. In my life experience I have found a lot of people when they say "gay peoples unwelcome advances" they tend to mean "gay predators"
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:Relapse - fair enough, I was just checking. In my life experience I have found a lot of people when they say "gay peoples unwelcome advances" they tend to mean "gay predators"
It just brings my defenses up a little.
No problem. I was thinking along the lines of kids, who are more likely to be impulsive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bakerofish wrote:@Relapse
because constant begging lets the boys get what they want ?
That's the way some kids raise were raised to learn. The kid wears the parent down with constant begging. Instead of diciplining the child, the parent caves and gives them what they were begging for. A crappy way of handling the child in my book, but there you have it.
Bakerofish wrote:No you don't segregate them but I am sure a lot of people out there arent comfortable with girls and boys camping in the same tents
But what about the threat of people who have not come out of the closet? OH NO, SECRET PEOPLE WHO MAY LIKE PEOPLE IN THE SAME TENT/CAMPING GROUND AS THEM!
Why not just ban camping because a tree might blow over and injure some kids? Or the sun might burn their skin?
Bakerofish wrote:No you don't segregate them but I am sure a lot of people out there arent comfortable with girls and boys camping in the same tents
But what about the threat of people who have not come out of the closet? OH NO, SECRET PEOPLE WHO MAY LIKE PEOPLE IN THE SAME TENT/CAMPING GROUND AS THEM!
Why not just ban camping because a tree might blow over and injure some kids? Or the sun might burn their skin?
the first part is actually a very real problem that the BSA has been dealing with for years. That's why i had an earlier comment about having a Lesbian as scout master being "one less thing to worry about"
look, you might not have kids yet, I dont certainly, but looking back at what *I* did as a kid made me realize that people have a point. It's about striking a balance
the Boy Scouts were created with ideals that some may find outdated today but that doesnt mean that it can't change. And outdated doesnt necessarily mean bad either..
Bakerofish wrote:look, you might not have kids yet, I dont certainly, but looking back at what *I* did as a kid made me realize that people have a point. It's about striking a balance
Bakerofish wrote:
the first part is actually a very real problem that the BSA has been dealing with for years.
Well, really since the BSA has existed. Its not like gay people just suddenly appeared 30 years ago.
Frazzled wrote:
No gak sherlock. He also said no coed sleepovers. Same idea.
Simple solution: STD tests for all BSA kids. No pregnancy, no STDs, no problem. It'll be like Sparta, but cleaner, and we all know how tough they were.
But in all seriousness, it would easy to simply ban sexual behavior. That way if a homosexual makes an advance at a BSA event, and its reported (and it most likely would be considering the ubiquity of straight people) he can simply be removed on those grounds. If it isn't reported, well, there's really no way to stop that, not even by banning homosexuals.
Of course, Chuck Norris was arm wrestling with god when the universe was created, so that he has this view point shouldn't be that surprising 
and exactly what the 
