About those anti-aviatoin newsgroups

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:OEc0b.184590$uu5.34852@sccrnsc04...
Would you feel the same way if the BSA had a no blacks or no Jews
policy
rather
than a no gays policy?

Well, Margy, if you are you asking if I would be upset that the Scouts
were
banned from the schools for hypothetically banning Jewish and black
members,
the answer is no. In your example, the Scouts (or any other group)
would
quite deservedly have earned the wrath of the School Board and the Civil
Rights community by arbitrarily banning members based on skin color or
religion.

How about the collegiate groups for blacks, women, Hispanics...? They're
heroes.

Do they exclude members based on race, gender, etc.? And use public-school
facilities to meet?

Look, putting aside the legal question for a moment, there's nothing morally
unreasonable about a group of people organizing around a shared interest or
activity. But it doesn't work to declare every prejudice the group has as a
morally legitimate shared interest; for example, it would be immoral for
your local golf organization to declare that its shared interest is in
playing golf among white people, so that nonwhites can be excluded. In
reality, its shared activity is just playing golf, and the exclusion of
nonwhites would be a shameful prejudice (though legally permitted--as it
should be--if the group is private).

In the same way, if the central activity of the Boy Scouts were to get
together and worship deities, then their exclusion of atheists would be
morally unobjectionable. Or if the Scouts' central activity were to conduct
heterosexual orgies, then their exclusion of gay people would be morally
unobjectionable. But if instead their central activities are things like
tying knots and lighting campfires, and learning about civics and
leadership, then to exclude gays and atheists on the grounds that they're
inherently bad role models (which is the Scouts' official reason for the
exclusion--see their web site) is just as shamefully prejudiced as it would
be for the Scouts to exclude blacks and Jews on the grounds that *they* are
inherently bad role models.

--Gary

Jay Honeck wrote:

Would you feel the same way if the BSA had a no blacks or no Jews policy
rather
than a no gays policy?

Well, Margy, if you are you asking if I would be upset that the Scouts were
banned from the schools for hypothetically banning Jewish and black members,
the answer is no. In your example, the Scouts (or any other group) would
quite deservedly have earned the wrath of the School Board and the Civil
Rights community by arbitrarily banning members based on skin color or
religion.

So it's just a matter of which bigotry you agree with. If the group won't let
in Blacks they are bad, if they won't let in Jews they are bad, if they won't
let in gay people they are ok? What about Gypsies? Catholics?

Margy

"Steve House" wrote in message

....- to arbitrarily define that
"marriage" can only be between persons of opposite gender may be
traditional
but it is an anachronism based solely on an aversion to homosexuality.

Ah, so even in prehistory we are to blame all on "homophobes". Tripe. The
notion of a two-gender relationship around a core family unit evolved
millenia ago, even before the concept was recognized or codified as
"marriage". It evolved that way because even the most primitive of human
groups could recognize and understand the benefit to the entire clan of a
structured society and of a cohesive social fabric in which to provide
security for the clan and to raise and protect their young as they grew and
learned the ways of the clan. To state that such an evolution was based on
an arbitrary aversion to homosexuality is ludicrous.

It presupposes that homosexual love is somehow of lesser moral quality than
heterosexual love.

I can't quite get my hands around a picture of a primitive clan discussing
the "...lesser moral quality..." of other members of the clan. Such a
prehistoric evolution more likely simply recognized that a homosexual
relationship made no concrete contribution to the stability, security, or
social interweave of the clan.

JG

I refuse to support United Way and any other organization who
discriminates against the BSA.

Saw this year where UW did not meet their quota G

Won't meet if I have anything to say about it.

Big John


On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:28:17 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
My personal feelings about the matter is that any private organization
should be able to discriminate against any group that it wishes for any
reason.

I agree with you there. However:

* The BSA should not enjoy preferential treatment or be granted any sort
of government support. As a private organization, they should be
self-sufficient if they wish to discriminate.

* As a former scout myself, I look forward to a day when in good
conscience allow my own son to participate in the BSA. The BSA has a lot of
great things to offer. I will continue to be vocal in my desire for the BSA
to change their policy, for this reason. Will I ask the government to force
a change? No, absolutely not. But if the change happens from within, as a
result of pressure from without, I see nothing wrong with that.

In other words, the BSA should be permitted to do what they feel is best.
However, they should not be surprised when they receive social criticism.

Pete

As I read this thread it seems that Gays do not check their mags at
the same RPM as Straights? (on thread)

Before the posters come to blows, I'd suggest the thread be moved to a
'gay' site where it can be argued to eternity.


Big John.


On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:28:17 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
My personal feelings about the matter is that any private organization
should be able to discriminate against any group that it wishes for any
reason.

I agree with you there. However:

* The BSA should not enjoy preferential treatment or be granted any sort
of government support. As a private organization, they should be
self-sufficient if they wish to discriminate.

* As a former scout myself, I look forward to a day when in good
conscience allow my own son to participate in the BSA. The BSA has a lot of
great things to offer. I will continue to be vocal in my desire for the BSA
to change their policy, for this reason. Will I ask the government to force
a change? No, absolutely not. But if the change happens from within, as a
result of pressure from without, I see nothing wrong with that.

In other words, the BSA should be permitted to do what they feel is best.
However, they should not be surprised when they receive social criticism.

Pete

Big John wrote:

As I read this thread it seems that Gays do not check their mags at
the same RPM as Straights? (on thread)

Before the posters come to blows, I'd suggest the thread be moved to a
'gay' site where it can be argued to eternity.

But we aren't gay, we are straight.

Margy

Steve House wrote:

You may
not personally wish to have a black person as the scoutmaster of the local
scout troop, your opposition based solely on his race, but the law prevents
that irrational prejudice from impacting on the selection of the
scoutmaster.

The law provides no such thing. The Boy Scouts is a private organization and
*could* exclude blacks if they chose (which they do not choose to do).

George Patterson
Brute force has an elegance all its own.

Margy

But you are attracting Gays and the tenor of the posts is changing.
None of the posts now have anything to do with aviation or the
aircraft noise factor thread it started out about.

I do a lot of posting off thread but 'most' of these posts are about
my life with heavy iron and places where I flew and the surroundings,
etc. A few, like this one, could be considered a "net nanny" post I
guess, which is not good. I therefore apologize before I get taken to
the cleaners. G

Big John


On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 22:20:29 -0400, Margy Natalie
wrote:



Big John wrote:

As I read this thread it seems that Gays do not check their mags at
the same RPM as Straights? (on thread)

Before the posters come to blows, I'd suggest the thread be moved to a
'gay' site where it can be argued to eternity.

But we aren't gay, we are straight.

Margy

"Big John" wrote in message
...
Margy

But you are attracting Gays

Yep, Margy's just busing us in from everywhere.

--Gary

Gary

No way can you play the race card.

Big John


On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 03:15:49 GMT, "Gary L. Drescher"
wrote:

"Big John" wrote in message
.. .
Margy

But you are attracting Gays

Yep, Margy's just busing us in from everywhere.

--Gary