City of Philadelphia Adds $199,999 to Boy Scout HQ Rent Due to Gay Ban

[melon]

Originally posted by MadelynIris
You know there are some college fraternities, and other social organizations that also require members to declare a belief in "God".

Curious if we should enact laws or come up with other creative ways for these groups to change.

Is there a point when clubs can or can't dictate certain membership criteria?

I think that this issue is more complicated than it seems. For one, private organizations are completely free to discriminate in its membership for any reason, it seems. This is the criteria, for instance, that allows the KKK to exist legally.

On the other hand, whether formally or informally, certain organizations have long existed under the perception of "inclusion," and, as such, governments often feel comfortable in giving them benefits or breaks that, while remaining private, gives these organizations a kind of de facto "public" status--i.e., United Way, Big Brothers & Big Sisters, etc.

The Scouts used to exist under this same kind of status--private, but de facto public--because of the goodwill it generated. Nonetheless, who feels "good" about granting public money and favors to an organization that literally fought its way to the Supreme Court for the arbitrary right to exclude atheists and homosexuals?

Nobody does. And now the Scouts are going to learn the consequences of expending its goodwill, and will have to operate like any other ordinary "private organization." In essence, by fighting for its right to discriminate--as accorded to any private organization--it basically ceded its "quasi-public" status in the process.

As I stated before, for an organization that does not discriminate against non-Christian theists--they officially recognize all kind of obscure religions that few people have heard of (and it was where I first read the word "Zoroastrianism," for instance)--it makes little practical sense to suddenly define "morality" by conservative Christian definitions. Some of these same religions that the Scouts recognize have zero problems with homosexuality. Essentially, on this point, that makes them a complete hypocrite on the issue of their own religious diversity policies.

As for banning atheists, again, it seems rather silly. It may very well be that their traditional policy is to only accept "theists," but this is very easily a category that they could have just turned a blind eye to, since Scouting, practically speaking, has no real religious component to it.

That's probably what makes this whole long running controversy so maddening. There's no practical reason as to why this group had to shoot itself in its own foot. But it has, and now has to understand that there are consequences for those actions. The Scouts cannot have their cake and eat it too.

[melon]

Originally posted by nathan1977
It doesn't. That's not true.

By the way...

"If a youth comes to a Scoutmaster and admits to doing wrong, like stealing, lying, cheating or vandalizing, the normal procedure is to counsel the youth privately and sympathetically...If the youth admits to being a homosexual, the Boy Scouts' policy is to instantly terminate his association with Scouting." - Findings of fact, in a DC court case

So, yes, the Scouts discriminate both in their leadership and membership.

[A_Wanderer]

Originally posted by MadelynIris
You know there are some college fraternities, and other social organizations that also require members to declare a belief in "God".

Curious if we should enact laws or come up with other creative ways for these groups to change.

Is there a point when clubs can or can't dictate certain membership criteria?

When they are getting support from the state.

[Vincent Vega]

Originally posted by MadelynIris
You know there are some college fraternities, and other social organizations that also require members to declare a belief in "God".

Curious if we should enact laws or come up with other creative ways for these groups to change.

Is there a point when clubs can or can't dictate certain membership criteria?

I think it's very hard to compare a fraternity, or some exclusive private club, to an organisation like the Scouts.
I don't think there is any discussion about public funding of any organisation that discriminates against any group of people; they just don't deserve it.

Legally you can't force them to accept any minority group, as has been ruled by the Supreme Court, but as citizens praising the freedom and tolerance and whatnot of your country it would be mightily contradictory to accept an organisation like the Scouts to deny gays or atheists the membership, when on the other hand Scout organisations are meant to teach children and teenagers values of living together responsibly and everything that goes with scouting.

In my opinion Scout organisations take some responsibility when they are claiming to educate children, and normally they do so.

At least there are other organisations independent of the BSA and it would be good if those organisations could attract more members, giving out a clear sign that intolerance isn't acceptable in these times.

But sadly, what I've learned from reading here there are many people who still see atheists and gays as something inferior you don't have to accept, nor tolerate.

So, at least, they lose there public funding and benefits.

[BrownEyedBoy]

Originally posted by dazzlingamy
so what? im sick and tired of people acting like men are just pathetic can't keep it in their pants type of people. Oh women can't be in special ops because they're around men so much that all the emn will do is wanna screw em, and not keep their mind on the job
oh you can't wear a short skirt, or top cause men will get all in a tizz and attack you
oh you can't be gay and go camping with other guys because you'll start getting all brokeback mountain on them
oh you can't be on a team with guys when your a homo because everytime you have a shower with them, you want to jump all there asses.

its such utter bullshit. This belief that men are all predators and can't keep it in their pants to EXCLUDE people from things is so fucking pathetic.

Way to twist what I said into something that it's not.

See, you forget that girls and boys DON'T shower together. And the girls troop sleeps in a different tent. It's the same thing. How does that not make sense?

[indra]

Originally posted by MadelynIris
You know there are some college fraternities, and other social organizations that also require members to declare a belief in "God".

Curious if we should enact laws or come up with other creative ways for these groups to change.

Is there a point when clubs can or can't dictate certain membership criteria?

In this case no one is telling the boy scouts they can't discriminate. They are simply no longer going to subsidise their office space if they do. If they want to have the rights of a private organisation they should be prepared to accept the responsibilities as well. Paying market value rent is one of those responsibilities. I thought responsibility was a big boy scout thing.

[melon]

Originally posted by BrownEyedBoy
See, you forget that girls and boys DON'T shower together. And the girls troop sleeps in a different tent. It's the same thing. How does that not make sense?

It doesn't make sense, because it isn't the same situation. Chances are, if you have ever been in a group showering situation, at least one of those people has been gay and you didn't know it. Now did it kill you?

Frankly, this whole hypothetical situation is ridiculous. This kind of discrimination doesn't eliminate homosexuals; it just keeps them hidden. So if you're worried about them lusting after you behind your back, guess what? It's could still be happening!

[deep]

I was a Cub Scout and a Boy Scout

and being 'morally chase' and unsympathetic to gays went - hand in hand (figuratively speaking)

"Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man"

[anitram]

Originally posted by BrownEyedBoy

See, you forget that girls and boys DON'T shower together. And the girls troop sleeps in a different tent. It's the same thing. How does that not make sense?

Boys and girls (at least in the Western setting) have not been culturally groomed to shower together, and therefore it is seen as unacceptable much like walking around topless (for women) is not something you would see on our streets.

Boys do shower together and women shower together and there are gay men and lesbians among them that you may be unaware of.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by BrownEyedBoy
It's the same thing.

Uh, it's not.

Melon and anitram pretty much said everything I want to say about it though.

[MadelynIris]

In this case no one is telling the boy scouts they can't discriminate. They are simply no longer going to subsidise their office space if they do. If they want to have the rights of a private organisation they should be prepared to accept the responsibilities as well. Paying market value rent is one of those responsibilities. I thought responsibility was a big boy scout thing.

Sure, if $200,000 the going rate -- so be it.

[martha]

Originally posted by MadelynIris


Sure, if $200,000 the going rate -- so be it.

Do you think the city is gouging the Scouts?

[Vincent Vega]

You can easily find the current market value for any estate on the internet, so I don't think they are trying to screw them.
And it's certainly a realistic price for an estate in the city of Philadelphia.

[dazzlingamy]

thanks guys!

for the record, when i went camping i shared a tent with 8 other boys. 8 smelly farting horomonal boys, and a part from being grossed out by the smells, i went to sleep and woke up intact. In fact i actually shared a BLANKET with another boy and no hanky panky went on. Because you see, we were friends, and young, and well, he wasn't some psycho walking errection male.

anyway, just my two cents on this whole issue which i find ludicrious, and rediculous to the extreme.

[Angela Harlem]

Originally posted by MadelynIris


Sure, if $200,000 the going rate -- so be it.

Really hurts, doesn't it, this banning of gays business.

[Vincent Vega]

Originally posted by dazzlingamy
thanks guys!

for the record, when i went camping i shared a tent with 8 other boys. 8 smelly farting horomonal boys, and a part from being grossed out by the smells, i went to sleep and woke up intact. In fact i actually shared a BLANKET with another boy and no hanky panky went on. Because you see, we were friends, and young, and well, he wasn't some psycho walking errection male.

anyway, just my two cents on this whole issue which i find ludicrious, and rediculous to the extreme.

Well, to be honest, if the little man down there wants to stand up, you have no control over it.
But anything else... well, if you can't control it you need some therapy.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by MadelynIris


Sure, if $200,000 the going rate -- so be it.

if that's what it costs to keep the queers and godless off our boys, then so be it.

[MrsSpringsteen]

God there's lots o'hot stuff going on in showers apparently. I thought people were just cleaning themselves and washing their hair

[BrownEyedBoy]

Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
God there's lots o'hot stuff going on in showers apparently. I thought people were just cleaning themselves and washing their hair

I notice how there is so much selective ignorance going on in this subject. It´s very selfish to assume that a woman would not feel uncomfortable showering in front of a man.

The whole point of allowing same sex showering is because it is presumed that there won´t be any "peeping" going on thus ensuring each person´s privacy. How does that not make sense?

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally posted by BrownEyedBoy



I notice how there is so much selective ignorance going on in this subject. It´s very selfish to assume that a woman would not feel uncomfortable showering in front of a man.

The whole point of allowing same sex showering is because it is presumed that there won´t be any "peeping" going on thus ensuring each person´s privacy. How does that not make sense?

Ignorance? The point we were making is that men aren't animals (neither are women) and could actually shower together (with men and women) without attacking each other sexually. That's not the same as people feeling uncomfortable doing it. So same goes for men with men. What's "ignorant" perhaps is having such a seemingly low opinion of your own gender. That was the point.

I bet more straight guys are "peeping" at other straight guys than any gay men are.