Speakeasy forum

General discussion

This seems odd. What am I missing?

by Steven Haninger / June 1, 2013 1:34 AM PDT
Scout uniforms banned at gay pride parade

The reason stated is that the uniforms violate the rules which disallow the presence political or social advocacy. But isn't that what the LGBT community is essentially doing?...and didn't the BSA's announcement that it will now allow gay persons to join the scouts enough of the enchilada to at least get some positive recognition from these folks?
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: This seems odd. What am I missing?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: This seems odd. What am I missing?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Perhaps they want even more
by TONI H / June 1, 2013 2:14 AM PDT

as that's what liberal causes usually do....they get their foot in the door, gripe it's not enough, and push for everything all at one time. I would assume they aren't happy enough with the fact that gay scouts are now allowed and that they want gay scout leaders to also be allowed. And our country continues to degrade in utter chaos and no longer recognizable.

Collapse -
Looks like you're wrong (again)
by Josh K / June 2, 2013 8:51 AM PDT

It was the scouts who said "no uniforms," not the "liberals."

Collapse -
Maybe I'm misreading, but it seems to me the Scout
by Roger NC / June 1, 2013 3:00 AM PDT

organization is the one that is saying they can't wear the uniforms for political reasons?

Rick Barnes, chief scout executive of the Great Salt Lake Council, said he learned of the plans for Sunday's parade from a Scoutmaster, Peter Brownstein, organizing for Scouts and adults working with the Boy Scouts of America ...........

"We as a Scouting movement do not advocate any social or political position, so I reminded Mr. Brownstein that we do not wear uniforms at an event like this," Barnes said..................

Collapse -
I think you're right. You are misreading that portion
by Steven Haninger / June 1, 2013 4:14 AM PDT

I interpret it as meaning that it's the LGBT organizers who consider the BSA to be advocating for a political issue and that Mr. Barnes is just saying that's not the case. The Boy Scouts don't go out and demonstrate for anything political, contribute to political campaigns, etc. I take it that Mr. Barnes is saying it's not their political issue though it might be that of the LGBT community...therefore, it shouldn't be a problem.

Collapse -
I'm seeing your point after a rereading
by Steven Haninger / June 2, 2013 1:23 AM PDT

of the article. I was wondering why the BSA would even officially attend this event. I was confusing the sub group with the orthodox group. For now, I'll blame the writer for my confusion. Wink

Collapse -
(NT) it's good to have someone to blame, I'll agree, his fault
by Roger NC / June 2, 2013 1:43 AM PDT
Collapse -
This seems like a no brainer
by James Denison / June 1, 2013 10:30 PM PDT

A tempest in a teapot. Why would scout uniforms be there in the first place? Boy Scouts want to attend a homosexual parade?! I'd think not. That's like KKK saying they don't want any blacks at their next great clan rally. Really? Were they lining up at the door, banging to be let in? If instead the gays had said they wanted no "femmes" and no "bull dykes" at their parade, or had decided to exclude transsexuals, now THAT would have been news.

Collapse -
(NT) There have been scouts publically supporting homosexuality
by Roger NC / June 2, 2013 4:32 AM PDT
Collapse -

They are used by various groups and are identified with that group, therefore rules on where and when they can be worn is perfectly OK. Even police when off duty are restricted on what they do on their own time if in uniform still.

Collapse -
(NT) They wore the scout uniforms anyway.
by Diana Forum moderator / June 2, 2013 2:24 PM PDT
Collapse -
Then they should be kicked out of boy scouts.
by James Denison / June 2, 2013 5:40 PM PDT

Violate the rules, suffer the consequences. What do they lose? A uniform. What do they gain. Nothing really.

Collapse -
Seems to be correct
by Steven Haninger / June 2, 2013 9:00 PM PDT
Boy Scouts defy order to not wear uniforms in gay pride parade

I personally don't care much what the sexual orientation is of scouts as long as rules are obeyed. "Immoral" behavior is against the rules as is participation in politically motivated activities while representing the organization. If the punishment is expulsion, it's their choice to decide whether they want to be scouts or activists. I might guess some remedial measures that won't be made public could be offered to those who disobeyed the no uniform order here.

What saddens me more is how many well respected organizations (including businesses) are either voluntarily doing so or finding it necessary to enter these political arenas. We have way too much politics in our lives already. There's too little respite from it.
Collapse -
It's all leading to a war eventually I fear
by James Denison / June 3, 2013 2:27 AM PDT
In reply to: Seems to be correct

The forces of immoral evil continue to "push the envelope" when actually they've already fallen out of the mailbox and getting washed down the muddy road toward the sewer. Once America's had a belly full of it, once America's tired of the gangs, the disgusting, the arrogant selfishness of the immoral, there will be revival, but those who have enjoyed frolicking their shame openly will not willingly go back to the shadows where they belong, they will have to be driven there. The alternative to that is even worse to contemplate.

Collapse -
You probably think that...
by Pepe7 / June 3, 2013 2:45 PM PDT

...gay people choose to become gay (ROTFL).

You remind me of the goofy preachers that often visited major universities in the midwest about 15-20 yrs ago. Very entertaining Wink

Collapse -
I work with a lot of gays
by Diana Forum moderator / June 3, 2013 3:11 PM PDT

Was talking to one of them and told him about asking when straights chose to be straight and he said - yea, right - like I would choose this.


Collapse -
by Josh K / June 3, 2013 10:44 PM PDT

"Well, let's see, I could be straight, or I can be gay and be subjected to bigotry, discrimination, random beatings, the inability to marry, self-righteous people shouting at me that I'm going to hell........yup, that's the one I want!"

Yeah, I'm sure that happens all the time.

Collapse -
Even pedophiles could say that
by James Denison / June 3, 2013 11:15 PM PDT
In reply to: Exactly

That proves nothing and certainly doesn't justify ANY sort of sexually deviant behaviors.

Collapse -
No, they actually say the child wanted it
by Diana Forum moderator / June 5, 2013 6:38 AM PDT

Just like men justify rape by saying that the woman was being provocative and really wanted it.


Collapse -
what you do is what you choose
by James Denison / June 3, 2013 11:15 PM PDT

So if they do it, then they chose to do it. That is a CHOICE.

Collapse -
And you STILL don't understand.....
by Josh K / June 3, 2013 11:19 PM PDT

......the difference between a sexual orientation and the choice whether or not to engage in sexual activity (gay or otherwise). A straight person who chooses to be celibate is still straight, just as a gay person who chooses to be celibate is still homosexual.

I don't think I'm going to bother continuing to try to explain that to you. A six-year-old would get it by now.

Collapse -
There is no understanding what doesn't exist
by James Denison / June 4, 2013 12:56 PM PDT

Lust is lust. It may express itself in various ways, but still just lust.

Collapse -
Sexual orientation doesn't exist?
by Josh K / June 5, 2013 5:45 AM PDT

Really? You only consummated your marriage in order to have kids? There was no pleasure in it at all? You were just doing what was expected as a husband? That's too bad.

Collapse -
You only get to consummate it once
by Steven Haninger / June 5, 2013 6:00 AM PDT

This may or may not result in a child. There's more to the story but we can save it for later.

Collapse -
True, but.....
by Josh K / June 5, 2013 6:06 AM PDT

.....if you believe sex is only for procreation then you wouldn't consummate unless you were hoping it would result in pregnancy. There is apparently no such thing as attraction in James's world.

Collapse -
Josh...here's what I'm taught and believe to be as
by Steven Haninger / June 5, 2013 6:29 AM PDT

good an explanation as any. That pleasure can be derived as well as children created by male/female sexual bonding is both purposeful as well as being a gift. That gift is not be treated frivolously as it can also cause harm. That which we say is OK between adults who act in consent is not the same as adults who act with respect for one another, in a giving manner, and who are willing to accept and deal properly with any outcome. This means that, should pregnancy occur, the conceived is to be accepted as being another gift and not an unintended consequence. I know that may sound hokey next to today's selfish thinking.

Collapse -
That is lovely, Steven (no sarcasm)
by Diana Forum moderator / June 5, 2013 6:40 AM PDT

Do you also believe (like the lawyers said before SCOTUS) that marriage was just for having babies?


Collapse -
Diana, I don't know what the SCOTUS said
by Steven Haninger / June 5, 2013 7:13 AM PDT

marriage was for but I have my own resources and, now, my own thoughts. Maybe I've just been lucky but I've been blessed by having a very good marriage that has evolved gracefully as my wife and I have aged...maybe not so gracefully. Marriage is, to me, meant to be an enduring partnership that remains true to the pledges we made early. Those pledges are not words to be used as weapons but as nourishment as needed. Our nest is empty now but my wife and I remain best friends. I can't ask any more than that. Happy

Collapse -
The judges haven't ruled yet
by Diana Forum moderator / June 5, 2013 7:21 AM PDT

This was the argument by the lawyers against gay marriage.


Collapse -
Diana, I don't see how lawyers can argue the
by Steven Haninger / June 5, 2013 7:38 AM PDT

definition or purpose of marriage other than what should be granted in the way of secular privileges and protections for those considered to be married. Personally, I believe the problem is in the use of the term and that term...marriage...should not have it's traditional definition changed. If gay persons want the same protections granted to those in traditional marriages, it's fine with me. Just give their arrangement another name and add it to the law. We also shouldn't be thinking that changing one definition automatically changes other definitions as well. It would be better to leave words alone so that they can be understood in the same way from one age to the other. Invent new words and terms as needed. Just my opinion.

Collapse -
The definition of marriage varies by culture
by Diana Forum moderator / June 5, 2013 10:01 AM PDT

Some cultures have polyandry and polygamy are marriages. The native American culture had marriages between the same sex long before we showed up on their shore. Even "traditional" marriage is defined different in different parts of the Bible.

A man can rape a virgin and then she has to marry him.

A man marries his brother's widow.

Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Wonder who got the night with him - wheel of fortune?

David made Bathsheba his wife after he committed adultery and had her husband killed. Is it still adultery when you have lots of wives and concubines?

During the Roman and Greek eras, marriage was just a reason to have kids. Homosexuality was the sex of choice.

The only time I remember of marriage between one man and one woman was when there was only one man and one woman. Ever wonder if they only had two boys and where the land of Nod was located and where those people came from or did Abel have a wife?


Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!