Gay Boy Scouts

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Gay Boy Scouts

Postby assateague » Fri Jul 05, 2013 7:52 pm

It's certainly not my fault that your liberal, feel-good nonsense translates no further than the end of whatever cause du jour it is being trotted out in support of.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland


Re: Gay Boy Scouts

Postby WTN10 » Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:57 pm

What is the soup today?
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14024
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: Gay Boy Scouts

Postby ctdeathfrombelow » Fri Jul 05, 2013 9:07 pm

WTN10 wrote:What is the soup today?

Gayzpacho....
User avatar
ctdeathfrombelow
hunter
 
Posts: 1513
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: Connecticut: The Confiscation State

Re: Gay Boy Scouts

Postby slowshooter » Fri Jul 05, 2013 9:19 pm

assateague wrote:It's certainly not my fault that your liberal, feel-good nonsense translates no further than the end of whatever cause du jour it is being trotted out in support of.


Okay, based on the mess I just read, you clearly anwered my question about going to Berkeley. :lol3: :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Gay Boy Scouts

Postby Glimmerjim » Sat Jul 06, 2013 7:13 am

assateague wrote:It's certainly not my fault that your liberal, feel-good nonsense translates no further than the end of whatever cause du jour it is being trotted out in support of.

Had a waitress ask a friend if he wanted the "soup du jour". He asked what it was and she said it was the "Soup of the Day".
He said, "Umm, that's sounds good, I'll take it"!
I don't know if that came from somewhere else but it got me rolling at the time! :lol3: The waitress couldn't understand what was so funny and got a little rude!
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10828
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Gay Boy Scouts

Postby Glimmerjim » Sat Jul 06, 2013 7:41 am

High Sierras wrote: Spinner, I'm not sure if this was directed at me or not... The point I was trying to make was that the 'progressives' want to force the BSA to accept the gay lifestyle. ie, that it's ok as an individual to have the right to associate with those you wish, but somehow magically when you form an organization, you loose that right. Heck, the progressive libs out here are going to revoke the BSA's non profit status if they don't buckle to allowing openly gay scout leaders. Talk about government coercion to mandate a social engineering idea on a private organization.


That's all well and good, HS, except for one little detail. The Boy Scout organization is NOT a private organization based upon its Tax Exempt status. Need to pick one argument or the other. All they have to do is give up their Tax Exempt status and they can call whatever shots they want.
http://www.usscouts.org/usscouts/aboutbsa/nonprofit.asp
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10828
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Gay Boy Scouts

Postby High Sierras » Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:16 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
High Sierras wrote: Spinner, I'm not sure if this was directed at me or not... The point I was trying to make was that the 'progressives' want to force the BSA to accept the gay lifestyle. ie, that it's ok as an individual to have the right to associate with those you wish, but somehow magically when you form an organization, you loose that right. Heck, the progressive libs out here are going to revoke the BSA's non profit status if they don't buckle to allowing openly gay scout leaders. Talk about government coercion to mandate a social engineering idea on a private organization.


That's all well and good, HS, except for one little detail. The Boy Scout organization is NOT a private organization based upon its Tax Exempt status. Need to pick one argument or the other. All they have to do is give up their Tax Exempt status and they can call whatever shots they want.
http://www.usscouts.org/usscouts/aboutbsa/nonprofit.asp
Whoops. Go check your link again pardner...It is still a private organization... just not a private foundation. Got to read the fine print a little slower.

The BSA is a 501 (3)(c) non-profit PRIVATE organization... just like California Waterfowl, Ducks Unlimited, The Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, Planned Parenthood, The Shriners... and they all are 'private' organizations too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood
Imagine the utter chaos to the U.S. Abortion industry if all the Catholics, Mormons, and various evangelical groups decided to join Planned Parenthood en masse, voted in pro-life board members, and re-vamped the whole P.P. mission statement. I mean, if they're not a private organization...right? They could be shut down within a few years, with no protection to decide who they allow in as members...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Waterfowl_Association
http://www.ducks.org/about-du?poe=hometxt
Or if CWA or DU suddenly got a new slate of vegan board members? Might turn the agenda from conservation to reservation. Not good for hunters when all the wetlands under DU or CWA control become off limits to all hunting and fishing, huh? I mean, if their not private organizations...right?


Edited twice to add the links to PP, CWA & DU showing their tax exempt status...

And I'd love to see how California can legally deny the BSA their tax exempt status for being exclusive about who they allow as volunteer scout leaders, unless they also force P.P. to start allowing the pro-life crowd in.
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 669
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

Re: Gay Boy Scouts

Postby Glimmerjim » Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:21 pm

High Sierras wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
High Sierras wrote: Spinner, I'm not sure if this was directed at me or not... The point I was trying to make was that the 'progressives' want to force the BSA to accept the gay lifestyle. ie, that it's ok as an individual to have the right to associate with those you wish, but somehow magically when you form an organization, you loose that right. Heck, the progressive libs out here are going to revoke the BSA's non profit status if they don't buckle to allowing openly gay scout leaders. Talk about government coercion to mandate a social engineering idea on a private organization.


That's all well and good, HS, except for one little detail. The Boy Scout organization is NOT a private organization based upon its Tax Exempt status. Need to pick one argument or the other. All they have to do is give up their Tax Exempt status and they can call whatever shots they want.
http://www.usscouts.org/usscouts/aboutbsa/nonprofit.asp
Whoops. Go check your link again pardner...It is still a private organization... just not a private foundation. Got to read the fine print a little slower.

The BSA is a 501 (3)(c) non-profit PRIVATE organization... just like California Waterfowl, Ducks Unlimited, The Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, Planned Parenthood, The Shriners... and they all are 'private' organizations too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood
Imagine the utter chaos to the U.S. Abortion industry if all the Catholics, Mormons, and various evangelical groups decided to join Planned Parenthood en masse, voted in pro-life board members, and re-vamped the whole P.P. mission statement. I mean, if they're not a private organization...right? They could be shut down within a few years, with no protection to decide who they allow in as members...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Waterfowl_Association
http://www.ducks.org/about-du?poe=hometxt
Or if CWA or DU suddenly got a new slate of vegan board members? Might turn the agenda from conservation to reservation. Not good for hunters when all the wetlands under DU or CWA control become off limits to all hunting and fishing, huh? I mean, if their not private organizations...right?


Edited twice to add the links to PP, CWA & DU showing their tax exempt status...

And I'd love to see how California can legally deny the BSA their tax exempt status for being exclusive about who they allow as volunteer scout leaders, unless they also force P.P. to start allowing the pro-life crowd in.

That is a distinction I am honestly not familiar with, HS. Let me investigate a bit. Do you have references at hand to the distinction in layman's terms?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10828
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Gay Boy Scouts

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:24 pm

Jim- it is private.....
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56858
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Gay Boy Scouts

Postby High Sierras » Tue Jul 09, 2013 5:43 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
High Sierras wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
High Sierras wrote: Spinner, I'm not sure if this was directed at me or not... The point I was trying to make was that the 'progressives' want to force the BSA to accept the gay lifestyle. ie, that it's ok as an individual to have the right to associate with those you wish, but somehow magically when you form an organization, you loose that right. Heck, the progressive libs out here are going to revoke the BSA's non profit status if they don't buckle to allowing openly gay scout leaders. Talk about government coercion to mandate a social engineering idea on a private organization.


That's all well and good, HS, except for one little detail. The Boy Scout organization is NOT a private organization based upon its Tax Exempt status. Need to pick one argument or the other. All they have to do is give up their Tax Exempt status and they can call whatever shots they want.
http://www.usscouts.org/usscouts/aboutbsa/nonprofit.asp
Whoops. Go check your link again pardner...It is still a private organization... just not a private foundation. Got to read the fine print a little slower.

The BSA is a 501 (3)(c) non-profit PRIVATE organization... just like California Waterfowl, Ducks Unlimited, The Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, Planned Parenthood, The Shriners... and they all are 'private' organizations too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood
Imagine the utter chaos to the U.S. Abortion industry if all the Catholics, Mormons, and various evangelical groups decided to join Planned Parenthood en masse, voted in pro-life board members, and re-vamped the whole P.P. mission statement. I mean, if they're not a private organization...right? They could be shut down within a few years, with no protection to decide who they allow in as members...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Waterfowl_Association
http://www.ducks.org/about-du?poe=hometxt
Or if CWA or DU suddenly got a new slate of vegan board members? Might turn the agenda from conservation to reservation. Not good for hunters when all the wetlands under DU or CWA control become off limits to all hunting and fishing, huh? I mean, if their not private organizations...right?


Edited twice to add the links to PP, CWA & DU showing their tax exempt status...

And I'd love to see how California can legally deny the BSA their tax exempt status for being exclusive about who they allow as volunteer scout leaders, unless they also force P.P. to start allowing the pro-life crowd in.

That is a distinction I am honestly not familiar with, HS. Let me investigate a bit. Do you have references at hand to the distinction in layman's terms?
Straight from the IRS website:
First, the 501 (c )(3):
http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Prof ... tion-501(c)(3)-Organizations
further, the 170 (b)(1)(A)(vi):
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicm80.pdf


The link you posted from the scouting website refers to the BSA’s tax exempt status, a 501c3 designation. Further, it’s listed as a ‘public charity’ as opposed to a private foundation. The 170 b 1 A vi ‘public charity’ designation tells the world in IRS lingo that the Scouts get a large portion of their revenues not from sales, but by “…direct or indirect contributions from the general public…”

We do have a big popcorn fundraiser each spring, think Girl Scout cookies but almost unknown to the public. Our troop usually brings in something like 2 – 5% of our annual operating budget by soliciting sales of popcorn from the general public in places like out in front of grocery stores.

The majority of our revenues are donated by the “General Public” at an event called the ‘Friends of Scouting dinner’. The “General Public” is a little of a misnomer though, the general public in this case is the parents and grandparents of the scouts, most of them former scouts themselves, who are invited to the dinner (usually held on a troop by troop basis at the troop's first Court of Honor of the year).

The Scouts get minimal funding (if any) directly from any government body. About the closest anyone can point out the Scouts getting taxpayer dollars is in the case of some local fire stations that have decided to be a sponsor organization to individual troops…and I don’t think they can ‘give’ taxpayer funds to the scout troop in any form or fashion, only make the fire station building available as a meeting place for the troop.

Everyone outside scouting seems to assume there’s some sort of tight financial relationship between the BSA and the U.S. Government… and it’s simply not there. About the only ‘privilege’ the Scouts ever got from Congress was they were included as one of the chartered organizations (along with both active and retired military organizations and their auxiliaries) tasked with retiring the U. S. flag properly when it becomes too frayed to mend in the U.S. Flag Code.

So, to end the debate on whether they’re a private organization or not, the Boy Scouts ARE a private organization, recognized by both the IRS code and the U.S. Government.









Whether the gays have some inherent 'right' to force themselves into a private organization where they’re not welcome… still open to debate!
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 669
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

Re: Gay Boy Scouts

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Jul 09, 2013 11:35 pm

High Sierras wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
High Sierras wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
WTN10 wrote:I certainly haven't denied anyone acceptance or empathy. I don't have to condone someone's desires or actions anymore than they mine to accept or empathize with them. That's just an appeal to ridicule and/or emotion to try an scare opponents off the topic.

You're correct WTN. Your acceptance or condoning of a certain behavior is certainly your right. It is those that take action to prevent others from having the same rights, experiences, and sense of acceptance that I personally don't condone.

But that same right to choose to accept or condone a certain behavior does not extend to private organizations, only individuals?

So you collectively lose all of your individual rights when you organize into a group? :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

That's insane nonsense. That is a total rejection of the fundamental freedom of association.

You are free to associate, but once you do, you lose your other rights :rolleyes:

That is EXACTLY what you just said.

Spinner, I'm not sure if this was directed at me or not... The point I was trying to make was that the 'progressives' want to force the BSA to accept the gay lifestyle. ie, that it's ok as an individual to have the right to associate with those you wish, but somehow magically when you form an organization, you loose that right. Heck, the progressive libs out here are going to revoke the BSA's non profit status if they don't buckle to allowing openly gay scout leaders. Talk about government coercion to mandate a social engineering idea on a private organization.

I missed the question mark at the end :oops:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16082
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Gay Boy Scouts

Postby vincentpa » Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:49 am

WTN10 wrote:I certainly haven't denied anyone acceptance or empathy. I don't have to condone someone's desires or actions anymore than they mine to accept or empathize with them. That's just an appeal to ridicule and/or emotion to try an scare opponents off the topic.



Empathize or symaphize... ?
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Gay Boy Scouts

Postby WTN10 » Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:53 am

Empathize is the correct word.

the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14024
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: Gay Boy Scouts

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:09 am

WTN10 wrote:Empathize is the correct word.

the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

Nope....definitely symaphize! :lol3: :lol3: :beer: Sorry VP, couldn't pass it up, I tried! :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10828
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Gay Boy Scouts

Postby vincentpa » Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:12 am

I always thought the difference between empathize and sympathize was personal experience. Maybe I was wrong. But not in your case Jim! :hi:
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Gay Boy Scouts

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:15 am

vincentpa wrote:I always thought the difference between empathize and sympathize was personal experience. Maybe I was wrong. But not in your case Jim! :hi:

:lol3: :lol3: :lol3: Nope, to know me is to feel sorry for me! :lol3: :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10828
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Gay Boy Scouts

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:21 am

High Sierras wrote: The link you posted from the scouting website refers to the BSA’s tax exempt status, a 501c3 designation. Further, it’s listed as a ‘public charity’ as opposed to a private foundation. The 170 b 1 A vi ‘public charity’ designation tells the world in IRS lingo that the Scouts get a large portion of their revenues not from sales, but by “…direct or indirect contributions from the general public…”

We do have a big popcorn fundraiser each spring, think Girl Scout cookies but almost unknown to the public. Our troop usually brings in something like 2 – 5% of our annual operating budget by soliciting sales of popcorn from the general public in places like out in front of grocery stores.

The majority of our revenues are donated by the “General Public” at an event called the ‘Friends of Scouting dinner’. The “General Public” is a little of a misnomer though, the general public in this case is the parents and grandparents of the scouts, most of them former scouts themselves, who are invited to the dinner (usually held on a troop by troop basis at the troop's first Court of Honor of the year).

The Scouts get minimal funding (if any) directly from any government body. About the closest anyone can point out the Scouts getting taxpayer dollars is in the case of some local fire stations that have decided to be a sponsor organization to individual troops…and I don’t think they can ‘give’ taxpayer funds to the scout troop in any form or fashion, only make the fire station building available as a meeting place for the troop.

Everyone outside scouting seems to assume there’s some sort of tight financial relationship between the BSA and the U.S. Government… and it’s simply not there. About the only ‘privilege’ the Scouts ever got from Congress was they were included as one of the chartered organizations (along with both active and retired military organizations and their auxiliaries) tasked with retiring the U. S. flag properly when it becomes too frayed to mend in the U.S. Flag Code.

So, to end the debate on whether they’re a private organization or not, the Boy Scouts ARE a private organization, recognized by both the IRS code and the U.S. Government.

Whether the gays have some inherent 'right' to force themselves into a private organization where they’re not welcome… still open to debate!

Thanks HS! You are far more conversant with Tax Codes and legal distinctions than I. My point was based simply on my opinion that any organization that receives tax-exempt status SHOULD be public. Otherwise, in essence, the tax-payer that is excluded from membership is forced to fund the organization that excludes him/her.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10828
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Gay Boy Scouts

Postby ScaupHunter » Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:42 am

So your view is that the churches and their organizations in America should be public? As in owned by the government?
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6557
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Gay Boy Scouts

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:52 am

ScaupHunter wrote:So your view is that the churches and their organizations in America should be public? As in owned by the government?

"Public" does not necessarily mean governmentally-owned in this context, to me anyhow. I just think that an organization should not receive tax-benefits subsidized by ALL taxpayers if it is an exclusionary organization benefitting SOME of the tax-payers. Should NAMBLA (or whatever it is called) be a tax-exempt organization if membership requires a predilection to pedophilia? As I said, I am not conversant enough with tax-codes to understand what constitutes a tax-exempt status, just thinking in layman's terms of what seems right and wrong.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10828
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Gay Boy Scouts

Postby High Sierras » Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:38 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:So your view is that the churches and their organizations in America should be public? As in owned by the government?

"Public" does not necessarily mean governmentally-owned in this context, to me anyhow. I just think that an organization should not receive tax-benefits subsidized by ALL taxpayers if it is an exclusionary organization benefitting SOME of the tax-payers. Should NAMBLA (or whatever it is called) be a tax-exempt organization if membership requires a predilection to pedophilia? As I said, I am not conversant enough with tax-codes to understand what constitutes a tax-exempt status, just thinking in layman's terms of what seems right and wrong.

Jim,

If you look at it in the light that the scouts are soliciting donations from the general public to pay for various and sundry items to run the program, ranging from summer camps and canoes to tents and merit badges, why should they be required to pay income tax on those donations in the first place? It’s not like they’re amassing a pile of wealth, it’s not like the BSA executive leaders are making a buck on it either... most are retired, what little money the BSA gives them reimburses them for mileage and some of their out of pocket expenses, which most of them would gladly pay for because they believe in all the good the program provides to the boys.

I see the tax-exempt status more as a formality that the IRS recognizes that the scouts are not soliciting donations to earn anyone an income, but to support an organization that gives boys a chance to see and do things their families might not otherwise be inclined or be able to afford to do. It's not that the Boy Sscouts are getting some sort of free ride at the taxpayer's expense, they're just not getting money taken from them by the IRS when they raise donations to support what is considered a chariatible enterprise. And no tax payer 'has' to donate a cent to the Boy Scouts, so the taxpayer (the public) shouldn't have a say in how they choose to operate.

I see what the homosexuals did to the BSA as no more than a thug shakedown... it had absolutely nothing to do with equality or civil rights, the gays wanted to force their will on another group of folks who were minding their own business. The BSA never went out looking for a fight, never said the gays were inferior or wrong in what they did, the Scouts just didn't want to associate with them. In the end, the homosexuals who pushed (and shoved, and ranted...) for this showed they are just a bunch of boorish, rude, A-holes who think they should be exempt from civil behavior, yet again.
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 669
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

Re: Gay Boy Scouts

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:49 pm

High Sierras wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:So your view is that the churches and their organizations in America should be public? As in owned by the government?

"Public" does not necessarily mean governmentally-owned in this context, to me anyhow. I just think that an organization should not receive tax-benefits subsidized by ALL taxpayers if it is an exclusionary organization benefitting SOME of the tax-payers. Should NAMBLA (or whatever it is called) be a tax-exempt organization if membership requires a predilection to pedophilia? As I said, I am not conversant enough with tax-codes to understand what constitutes a tax-exempt status, just thinking in layman's terms of what seems right and wrong.

Jim,

If you look at it in the light that the scouts are soliciting donations from the general public to pay for various and sundry items to run the program, ranging from summer camps and canoes to tents and merit badges, why should they be required to pay income tax on those donations in the first place? It’s not like they’re amassing a pile of wealth, it’s not like the BSA executive leaders are making a buck on it either... most are retired, what little money the BSA gives them reimburses them for mileage and some of their out of pocket expenses, which most of them would gladly pay for because they believe in all the good the program provides to the boys.

I see the tax-exempt status more as a formality that the IRS recognizes that the scouts are not soliciting donations to earn anyone an income, but to support an organization that gives boys a chance to see and do things their families might not otherwise be inclined or be able to afford to do. It's not that the Boy Sscouts are getting some sort of free ride at the taxpayer's expense, they're just not getting money taken from them by the IRS when they raise donations to support what is considered a chariatible enterprise. And no tax payer 'has' to donate a cent to the Boy Scouts, so the taxpayer (the public) shouldn't have a say in how they choose to operate.

I see what the homosexuals did to the BSA as no more than a thug shakedown... it had absolutely nothing to do with equality or civil rights, the gays wanted to force their will on another group of folks who were minding their own business. The BSA never went out looking for a fight, never said the gays were inferior or wrong in what they did, the Scouts just didn't want to associate with them. In the end, the homosexuals who pushed (and shoved, and ranted...) for this showed they are just a bunch of boorish, rude, A-holes who think they should be exempt from civil behavior, yet again.

Other than the last paragraph, which to me is just emotionally charged discriminatory generalization, I believe you have made your point very well, HS. Thanks for the insight. :thumbsup:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10828
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Gay Boy Scouts

Postby High Sierras » Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:57 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:Other than the last paragraph, which to me is just emotionally charged discriminatory generalization, I believe you have made your point very well, HS. Thanks for the insight. :thumbsup:


I didn't generalize... I specifically said the ones who pushed the agenda were being just plain rude. I'm sure there are a lot of homosexuals out there who just want to live their lives in peace -- and don't feel the need to force their views on their neighbors.


And it may very well have been a little emotionally charged. How would you feel if you were minding your own business and a bunch of folks you don't agree with tried to force you to conform to how they felt you should live your life? Happy? Pissed? Frustrated?
Last edited by High Sierras on Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 669
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

Re: Gay Boy Scouts

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:00 pm

High Sierras wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:Other than the last paragraph, which to me is just emotionally charged discriminatory generalization, I believe you have made your point very well, HS. Thanks for the insight. :thumbsup:


I didn't generalize... I specifically said the ones who pushed the agenda were being just plain rude. I'm sure there are a lot of homosexuals out there who just want to live their lives in peace -- and don't feel the need to force their views on their neighbors.

Rosa Parks didn't live a life of obsequieous acceptance, either, HS.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10828
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Gay Boy Scouts

Postby High Sierras » Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:03 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
High Sierras wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:Other than the last paragraph, which to me is just emotionally charged discriminatory generalization, I believe you have made your point very well, HS. Thanks for the insight. :thumbsup:


I didn't generalize... I specifically said the ones who pushed the agenda were being just plain rude. I'm sure there are a lot of homosexuals out there who just want to live their lives in peace -- and don't feel the need to force their views on their neighbors.

Rosa Parks didn't live a life of obsequieous acceptance, either, HS.


Neither did the KKK. Does it make what they did right as well?
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 669
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

Re: Gay Boy Scouts

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:38 pm

High Sierras wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
High Sierras wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:Other than the last paragraph, which to me is just emotionally charged discriminatory generalization, I believe you have made your point very well, HS. Thanks for the insight. :thumbsup:


I didn't generalize... I specifically said the ones who pushed the agenda were being just plain rude. I'm sure there are a lot of homosexuals out there who just want to live their lives in peace -- and don't feel the need to force their views on their neighbors.

Rosa Parks didn't live a life of obsequieous acceptance, either, HS.


Neither did the KKK. Does it make what they did right as well?

So I believe we are stating that either good or bad can come from standing up for what you believe. No argument. Which category this particular example falls into is based upon personal perspective, as all are of them.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10828
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Nabs and 6 guests