D0wn with Levi Strauss & C0.!

[Arta]

I do support slavery, not in a race based way.  I think there should be free prison labor.  Death by stoning, sure, if death is deserved why not.  Human sacrifice not in a 'jump into a volcano' way, but in the sense that someone can sacrifice their life for their country/beliefs/family

I guess technically the joinning vL theory wouldn't work because the defintion os discrimination is against a class/category, not an individual.  But Levi is discriminating against Boy Scouts because of our beliefs.

I still see Hooters as a totally valid example

Prison labor is pointless, the death penalty is abhorrent, and I refer to someone else doing the sacrificing. I guess the bible is just wrong about dead pigs. Speaking of the bible being the source of all morality: isn't God the source of all morality? Just a thought. Especially given that different branches of the church preach quite different moral values.

I think our positions are sufficiently divergent that no common ground is possible.

[CrAz3D]

Ok, God is the basis for morality, but the bible has a little bit to do with God

Which moral values are quite different?  Which ones conflict?

[Arta]

Ok, God is the basis for morality, but the bible has a little bit to do with God

I'll concede that

Which moral values are quite different?  Which ones conflict?

I think that's a topic for another thread. Feel free to start one

[hismajesty]

God and the Bible are mankinds main basis of morality, and right and wrong. I agree.

"You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination."

"[A] man shall leave his father and mother, and be made one with his wife; and the two shall become one flesh."

"Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolator, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers of drunkards of slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God."

[Arta]

In that case, I assume you think all of the bible is correct, and not just the parts you agree with. See my previous post.

[CrAz3D]

What was that part about touching dead pig skin?  Biblical football?

[Arta]

Something about it being unclean to touch the skin of a dead pig. I'll find the reference tomorrow if you like, but I'm going to bed now.

[Adron]

I guess it is. We probably thought higher of you than you really deserve. America is a country of prejudice and discrimination. Thanks for clearing that up.

And you point the finger at me for personal flames? America is a great nation, as is blatantly obvious by both history and current events. America is a country of liberties, and a private club has the right to set membership requirements?
...
Nowhere in the US Constitution does it state that private organizations and clubs cannot set requirements for employment or membership.

America ... no, I wouldn't say it's a great nation. Yes, of course private organizations and clubs can set requirements. I'm not talking about what great laws you have, but what you are like. I'm suggesting than in other countries than America, there'd be less likelihood of a large organization discriminating against homosexuals. Whether it's illegalized or not.

You base your entire opinion of American society off of the people that you see around here, and that isn't adequate.

Are you saying that you aren't a typical American? That you're shaming America?

If I were to base my opinion on all Swedes based on the people I have seen around here (you) then I'd have to say that Swedes are arrogant jackasses that are convinced of self-superiority and righteousness and that Sweden as a nation views itself as the bringer of truth and knowledge to the entire world. You see how asinine that sounds? Its exactly what you're doing.

Strange. I thought that was the description of Hazard.

[Adron]

Why is it alright to discriminate against people based on gender but not sexual preference Arta?

It's alright to select females or males where the difference is relevant. It's not alright where the difference is irrelevant. For example, if you were shooting a porn movie, you might want to select actors based on what kind of sexual actions they're willing to engage in. BSA isn't about hot steamy sex though, so the sexual preferences are irrelevant for all other reasons than homophobia.

Why do I have to work hard? Why do I have to become qualified? I've been hanging around for a long time, I've made a decent number of friends as well. Why aren't recruiters knocking at my door if this is an equal oppurtunity clan run by so many open minded people? I mean, why discriminate against me because I'm not working hard, not qualified, and perhaps haven't been around a long time or made any friends? What if I can't help it? What if I was a mentally challenged antisocial bnet player? Is that my fault?

You don't have to work hard. You do have to become qualified. Anything could qualify you, many things not even requiring hard work. Hard work might help, but it's not necessary. The selection is actually based on how well you'd fit in or if you'd extend vL in some interesting fashion. Recruiters aren't knocking at your door because that's not how we work. You can rest assured that you're not being discriminated against based on your sexual preferences though. Those aren't relevant.

[Adron]

The same idea, I think, applies to BSA. If I was going to put my child in a group that I thought was going to preach to him good moral values, I sure as hell wouldn't want a gay troop leader teaching these things - that's not a good example - especially when raising your child to be a Christian. It's just not, you can't deny it without lying.

Why wouldn't you want a gay troop leader preaching good moral values? Are you saying that BSA is actually Sex Ed.?

Really, the sexual preferences of whoever preaches good moral values are ... irrelevant!

[Scr33n0r]

As for the rest of your post, read my responses to Hazard. Should private groups be allowed to discriminate against black people, women, jews, the disabled...?

If it better serves the group, then yes. The best example in defense of BSA is the Supreme Court case involving Hooters. A guy sued them because he wanted to waitress there and they turned him down due to his gender. The case was taken to the Supreme Court and Hooters won due to the fact that it's customer base wants women surving them - not men. It was, thus, in the best interest of hte company to have only female waitresses.

The same idea, I think, applies to BSA. If I was going to put my child in a group that I thought was going to preach to him good moral values, I sure as hell wouldn't want a gay troop leader teaching these things - that's not a good example - especially when raising your child to be a Christian. It's just not, you can't deny it without lying.

A closer to home example is these forums. If somebody comes here who, to put it nicely, lacks a bit of intelligence/common sense/maturity/etc. what happens? They get flamed continuously until they either are scared away or are banned. For the most part, admins don't protect them. But then, if somebody can hold a semi-intellectual conversation, or they know a bit about technology, etc. most people welcome them with open arms and are nice to them. But everyone is OK with this, because these forums were generally ment for intelligent conversations, and allowing the opposite on a large scale would basically diminish the purpose/credibility of these forums. Sure, this is a much less extreme example but the idea applies.

Another one, why can't somebody like - me, or Mitosis join Valhalla Legends? You guys are, essentially, a private organization. And guess what? Your leaders/members are expected to act a certain way, and posess advanced knowledge in certain subjects (for the most part.) How is that not discrimination against those that aren't as advanced?


Arta, stop disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.

I myself and a couple hundred other people could give you a few good reasons why Mitosis wouldn't be allowed...

These are my thoughts on this whole thing:

1: I personally, do not like gay people, HOWEVER, I have no problem with them as long as they do not "get gay" anywhere near me, otherwise I can be very nice to them.

2: There is no chance of a homosexual raping a child unless they have more things wrong with their brain then just the fact of being gay. Which would be logged in their medical records.

3: If scouts is a private group, and they don't want homosexuals to be allowed with them, then so be it. The homosexuals can start their own scouting group if they want it that badly. Forcing BSA to allow homosexuals to join would be the only thing "wrong" going on.

[CrAz3D]

Adron:
What, in your opinion, IS a great nation then?

Why are you turning Hazards words around & using them maliciously against him?  Are all Swedish people manipulative?

By definition, as Arta pointed out, homophobia is a VERY GOOD reason & therefore it becomes irrelevant.  We do not agree with their sexual life, therefore it become relevant, maybe if someone could use reasonable logic they would see what has been stated over & over & over again.

I wouldn't want a gay person in scouts because they do not have the same moral standards as I do.  BSA ISN'T sex ed & no one said it was, you are putting MORE words in the mouths of others.

Sexual preferences are moral issues & are relevant.

Scr33n0r
I do believe that I'm on the exact same page as you are.

[dxoigmn]

dxoigmn:
So by accepting immoral people & shunning people that are being raised with respect, dignity, & morals you are making the world a better place?...hmm, ok

They don't think gay people are immoral! What do you not understand about that? It's an obvious conflict of opinion and both are entitled to that opinion. So let's  think about this for a moment.

Fact: The BSA believes homosexuals are immoral people.
Fact: LS & Co mandates that in order to get funding from them you must not discriminate as this is counter-productive to society.
Fact: LS & Co does not believe that homosexuals are immoral people.
Conclusion: LS & Co denys funding to the BSA because they discriminate, which is counter-productive to society (in LS & Co's opinion which is completely valid because if the BSA believes homosexuals to be immoral certainly LS & Co and believe them to not be immoral).
QED.

K:
But why should they support us FULLY knowing our stance against homosexuality & then withdraw funding based on the fact that we choose not to allow those peopel to join?  And also, because Levi wants BSA to accept everyone regardless of their beliefs & sexual prefferences, shouldn't they do the same?

Can you prove LS & Co fully knew about the BSA's stance against homosexuality? But even so, the answer to your first question is: because they can do whatever the hell they want with their own money just like the BSA can do whatever the hell is wants in it's own private little organization...ding ding ding! Now to address your second question. LS & Co does not want the "BSA to accept everyone regardless of their beliefs & sexual prefferences." They merely state that because you do not accept these people you don't get money from them. They're not forcing you to change your ways and I'm sure they could care less as long as you don't get any of their money. Anytime you get money from a private donor they have restrictions on how that money can be used and in the case of the federal government can force you to enact laws. This is the case with many federal monies, they force the several states to enact non-discriminatory laws otherwise they lose their funding (there is a great example with highway funding but I can't recall it exactly). What LS & Co is doing is essentially the same thing the federal government does and we do not question the federal government!

[Arta]

By definition, as Arta pointed out, homophobia is a VERY GOOD reason & therefore it becomes irrelevant. 

Excuse me? Homophobia is a terrible thing. It's the equivalent of racism or sexism.

[Adron]

3: If scouts is a private group, and they don't want homosexuals to be allowed with them, then so be it. The homosexuals can start their own scouting group if they want it that badly. Forcing BSA to allow homosexuals to join would be the only thing "wrong" going on.

This is OK, one shouldn't force them to anything. They shouldn't complain about losing sponsors though, and they must also be aware that some people's opinion of them will be significantly lowered because they don't allow people based on sexual orientation.