Mayor Of R'lyeh

The_Pole_Of_Justice

By who's definition? Homosexuality is widespread in nature.

Cannibalism, rape, murder and being eaten alive are common in nature too. Should we be extolling those as virtues as well?

Those activities have victims.

What is your view of morality of based on? The back of a cereal box?

Looking towards animals as justification for human behaviors is a poor way to do things. A large part of being a civilized human being is rising above what comes 'naturally'.

You mean like drawing boundaries between "us" and "them?"

That is NOT an argument that is in your interest to invoke.

LOL! The ol' you can't possibly be against homos unless you secretly are one line of crap. Does this actually work on anybody? It does signal that you've got nuthin' on an intellectual level when you come back with this stale old chestnut. The same goes for your ad hominem of a picture.

"Got Nuttin" my ass. You can certainly be against homosexuality without being one, but what YOU, YOU as an individual wrote...well that's another story.

Look, you're awfully certain about this. When I was studying Theology at Seminary in Columbus, the head Nun told me something that has always stuck with me: "the more you know, the less certain you can be." You were REAL certain with that homos as perverts stuff there...

Lets look at another comparison of what's happening to the Sea Scouts.

A Catholic Church opens a soup kitchen. The government gives money to the Catholic Church for the soup kitchen. The soup kitchen says it will only give food to the homeless if they are catholic. The government says it can't support that, no more money.

I don't see why this is such a hard concept. The Catholic Church doesn't have to allow Jews into it's church or it's food kitchen, but in that same breath they can't expect the government to give them money while discriminating against Jews.

The Marina can't give a discount to a group that discriminates. While the Sea Scouts seem harmless, the KKK or other hate groups could use it as a stepping stone to get their group free marina access.

The simple fact of the matter is you don't do for one what you can't do for all. The Marina offers a discount to all NPO's that don't discriminate. The Sea Scouts need to suck it up and pay the money.

poonie
Well, the fact of the matter is that the city has a by-law, which would hold up in any court, and unfortunately the Boy Scouts, who do discriminate, get caught up in it. Tough luck. If they don't like it, go somewhere else. But don't attack someone else's rule when your own is flawed. I was using the whole slavery and KKK example as just what someone else might say if the Boy Scouts get their way. Slippery Slope, it is.


Poonie your point is well made and well taken. The issue is ex post facto. That law was passed after the privilege was freely exercised. Therefore the legislation (not constitutional amendment) is subject to perspective from a ruling body in relation to the ex post facto law. Any schooled Judge will rule in favor of ex post facto in this situation.

FarkLark: Prospero, obviously 1950 racial practices are not on the same level as marina discounts.

The issue of marina discounts is just the specific syptom in this specific example. The problem is the overall policy, and you know it.

You seem simply to wish to minimize the issue by restricting its perceived consequences to the standpoint of this one marina. We all know it's bigger than that not only with regards to this particular context vis a vis the BSA, but the national issue of discrimination by sexual preference by any government-funded agency as well.

FarkLark

There should probably be a year or two grace period, but there should be limits. That is at the most. They shouldn't get a free pass, as no one else does when they openly discriminate and get caught on it.

gentlax13
It's a hard spot havng to deal with bigots or denying a kid a good opportunity to build character and leadership skills.

I guess I'd just question what kind of character and leadership skills you're really teaching your kid by sending them to an organization that espouses and celebrates bigotry in that fashion. Speaking personally, not the kind of character I'd want my kid to adopt for themselves.

It's obviously a choice fo rthe parents but I think the straight non-aethist kid is better off in scouts than not.

Maybe the scouts you and I remember, but the scouts today? I'd question that, too. An organization that centers itself on and defines itself by a policy of discrimination is going to start drawing the wrong kind of people, and driving off the right kind. That's what I think has gone on with BSA, the polarizing policy has totally altered the character of the organization for the worse. I really wouldn't advise anyone to associate themselves with the BSA anymore, and I say that as a former Scout and Explorers advisor.

ekdike04
It doesn't matter if A = B or not, what matters is that it's the same process.

Just as we have felony level crimes and misdemeanor level issues the magnitude of the offending issue is an overiding factor. In this particular case it appears the law was made to target the BSA. That ampliphies the issue and possible recourse for the BSA. Not only might the council have made a legal blunder in the wording of the law, they may very well have encroached upon the civil rights of the individual BSA members and have caused harm to same (monetary loss in marina).

FarkLark

In this particular case it appears the law was made to target the BSA. That ampliphies the issue and possible recourse for the BSA.

So my previous examples are relevant. So you're saying that laws meant to target people who discriminate are wrong? Come on.

FarkLark
In this particular case it appears the law was made to target the BSA.

Errr, how? The city allows cost free access to any non-discriminatory non-profit organization. It doesn't say "everyone but the BSA".

Iam, the government cannot give any religious organization money. An establishment of religion cannot be shown favor by the government.

First of all, legally speaking, the Boy Scouts do not engage in "discrimination" as sexual orientation is not a class of people federally protected by alleged discrimination. Therefore, the boy scouts do not discriminate.

Second of all, homosexuality IS an action. Whether or not this sexual proclivity is inborn is irrelevant. The only thing that is informed by one's homosexual orientation is who wishes to have sexual relations with and who one actually has sexual relations with. That those with homosexual orientation have decided to group together and form a subculture with their own cultural ethos and traits does not mean that having a homosexual orientation, by definition, you are a member of a subculture. THAT is a choice even if your sexual orientation is not.

Propero

Well said. However the legal issue is no more grandiose than the court in which it currently resides. To that I adhere.

//Is everyone who claims to be gay, born gay? No.
//This philosphy is GLAAD and PFLAG approved.

I've had questions about this for a while. For instance how does one know that they are gay or if they are confused?

With that in mind I have several questions for gay people who attend a gay church. Every major, orthodox, Church since the beginning of Christianity has taught that homosexuality and premarital sex are both sins. So a gay church would accept homosexuals as not being sinners. Does that just mean people who are really, really gay? People who aren't sure? If being gay is not a sin, is premarital gay sex still a sin? Does that mean that heterosexual people no longer have to worry about premarital sex being a sin?

If you don't think there is such a thing as sexual sin don't bother answering, but I'd really like to know the theology behind a gay church. I know they exist, but I have never had a chance to talk to a member so I'm throwing these questions out here hoping to get some answers.

shamus414: First of all, legally speaking, the Boy Scouts do not engage in "discrimination" as sexual orientation is not a class of people federally protected by alleged discrimination.

Bullshiat - they are American citizens, and all American citizens are protected against discrimination.

shamus414
First of all, legally speaking, the Boy Scouts do not engage in "discrimination" as sexual orientation is not a class of people federally protected by alleged discrimination.

Sexual orientation is a protected class at the state level in quite a few states. But you're glossing over the whole discrimnation against atheists bit. Religion most certainly is a protected class at the federal level.

FarkLark: Well said. However the legal issue is no more grandiose than the court in which it currently resides. To that I adhere.

So you hold no fundamental principles dear?

Or do you see this as only a technical legal problem?

I'll assume the latter, to which I'd reply only that this is a far more limited way to view this debate than any reasonable person should be expected to adhere to.

shamus414

First of all, legally speaking, the Boy Scouts do not engage in "discrimination" as sexual orientation is not a class of people federally protected by alleged discrimination. Therefore, the boy scouts do not discriminate.

Are you a lawyer? You sure talk like one.

Basically, you're saying that since the stuff written down doesn't say it, it doesn't exist.

Those of us who go by "reality" and not "some paper somewhere" have issue with that assessment.

Second of all, homosexuality IS an action. Whether or not this sexual proclivity is inborn is irrelevant.

Factually incorrect.

From dictionary.com:

ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty P Pronunciation Key (hm-sksh-l-t, -m-)
n.
Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
Sexual activity with another of the same sex.

You made two points, and they're both bullshiat. Congrats.

poonie, I am not saying laws against discrimination are wrong, I am saying in this case the issue (marina fees) were targeted by the council as punishment. Said punishment shall not pass (sayeth the Black Knight).

IANAL, but even a quick scan of the PDF filing raises eyebrows. It keeps swapping back and forth between assertions that Berkeley is restricting free speech or that it is not, depending on whether or not the argument is favorable or not to a particular part of the case.

It even stipulates that: The free-berthing program does not present a message of any kind. It merely provides for recreational activities in the Berkeley Marina.

Wherefore then the Sea Scouts' claim that their free speech is being restricted by not getting that free berthing?

PeopleFirst: With that in mind I have several questions for gay people who attend a gay church. Every major, orthodox, Church since the beginning of Christianity has taught that homosexuality and premarital sex are both sins.

Ah, my favorite logical fallacy: "Every church since the beginning of time has been just like my church, because I can't possibly conceive of anything being different."

FarkLark

Well, unless the law states that it's only the Sea Scouts that get punished, I see nothing wrong with it. It's any group that discriminates. And I don't see any problem with it.

FarkLark
I am saying in this case the issue (marina fees) were targeted by the council as punishment.

You don't think the city council has the right to decide that non-profit organizations which discriminate have to pay the public rate instead of getting the stuff for free?

FarkLark
Bush currently has the whole faith based initiative. Religions that fund charitys can apply for federal money. Not a bad idea until people started pointing out that only Christian charities were getting federal money.

shamus414
This isn't only about gays. It's also about Athiest and is starting to get to the point where it's also about Pagans, Muslims and Jews (although they haven't made that official yet). And Athiesm is still considered a religion which does make it discrimination.

Prospero, in relation to the debate the only limits are Fark based. In relation to the law I feel comfortable in my assessment.

This case does have the potential to climb the legal ladder, but on the issue of targeted punishment(marina fees) for non compliant beliefs(homosexuals, atheist et al).

mrexcess, I think the council, or any governing body should not undo the ex post facto laws.

FarkLark
but on the issue of targeted punishment(marina fees) for non compliant beliefs(homosexuals, atheist et al).

It isn't about non-compliant beliefs, its about whether or not the state has to support financially groups which engage in discrimination against protected classes. I think the answer to that is a pretty obvious "no".

Sloth_DC

Back it up. Show me a historical, orthodox, Christian Church that upholds the common creeds, that has homosexuality as not being a sin. You can't because there isn't one. Also, thanks for making assumptions about my thinking. I can conceive of one, but there isn't one historically.

I agree totally with the lower court's decision.

The thing that's kinda sad and ironic is that the Sea Scout unit in question may indeed itself have a non-discrimination policy. This is Berkeley, after all -- many of the Bay Area scout units have their own informal non-discrimination policies. I was involved as an adult leader with a cub scout unit in Oakland until last year and we had one. Even people at the San Francisco Bay Area Council (administrative level covering Berkeley, Oakland, San Leandro, Fremont) quietly told unit leaders that all scouts, including gays, were welcome. (not sure about atheists, that one was touchier, but then I'm not sure that the Berkeley City Council would revoke berthing privileges for a religious organization that welcomed gays -- the gay-rights thing is much more significant there).

But what Berkeley is asking the Sea Scout unit to do is to formally repudiate the BSA's anti-gay policy. And they can't do that without essentially daring the BSA to revoke their charter. So they're caught between a rock and a hard place.

But, ya know, that's the way it's gotta be. The Sea Scouts had to make their choice, and live with the consequences. Our cub unit didn't go around asking for free stuff from local governments, or for our donors to violate their own anti-discrimination policies. We weren't allowed to meet in the local elementary school, and we just had to lump it. The only way to get the BSA to come out of the dark ages and join the 21st century is for local governments like Berkeley to play hardball.

FarkLark
I think the council, or any governing body should not undo the ex post facto laws.

What laws or precidents, specifically, do you think this council is violating with this measure?

Dear BSA,

Join the 20th century, please. You can meet us in the 21st later.

Sincerely,
Reality

FarkLark: This case does have the potential to climb the legal ladder, but on the issue of targeted punishment(marina fees) for non compliant beliefs(homosexuals, atheist et al).

That's the problem: you see the revocation of a privelege as the same thing as a "punishment", legally.

That just seems ridiculous to me.

Sloth_DC:

It's that new Constitution everyone's been talking about.

There's a parody of a Billy Joel song in there, but I don't have time to find it.

Everybody's talkin' 'bout a new Constitution, but I still got my liberty.

Pyrosx said:
I thought that was half the farking point of the Boy Scouts: old men taking groups of young boys out on camps and playing games like hide the sausage....?

You were mistaken... that's the Catholic church.

PeopleFirst

Sloth_DC

Back it up. Show me a historical, orthodox, Christian Church that upholds the common creeds, that has homosexuality as not being a sin.

Y'know, there have been Churches in history that weren't Christian.

Sloth_DC's post made no Christian distinction.

I'd say you just proved him right: you just blatantly assumed a Christian perspective where there wasn't one.

The_Pole_Of_Justice: Church of the FSM for the win? ;)

Gosh, the times are changing. I wonder how my old Sea Scout unit would have handled something like this -- or the discrimination thing, for that matter, with a small number of semi-openly gay leaders among the adults. Sea Scout, for that matter, doesn't particularly identify itself with BSA. The org. is for older kids and it's co-ed.

WOOT!

PeopleFirst: Back it up. Show me a historical, orthodox, Christian Church that upholds the common creeds, that has homosexuality as not being a sin.

1) Who said anything about "Christian"? There are more churches than your narrow view of life, my friend.
2) Episcopalian, Cathedral of Hope, Unitarian.

The boy scouts teach morals and values, not just survival training and camping. The values and morals of the boy scouts don't support gays in anyway shape or form. They don't let them join so they don't come home every time crying to their mommies that people don't like them. Believe it or not they are trying to stop the gays from going through even worse times. But no, the grass is always greener on the other side no matter how brown it really is there. I find this whole idea that "Be yourself" movement is pile of crap. If you really yourself, you wouldn't were clothing or even use a toilet. You are nothing more then the product of the environment and your genetics. Because they have found more evidence that it is more to do with environment, you can over come that. Being gay can be overcome through counciling.
I think they should let them in, then put them into intensive programs showing whats wrong with them and helping them come to reason underlying all the media bullshait they get fed.

Some responses:

"Bullshiat - they are American citizens, and all American citizens are protected against discrimination."

Actually no, that is not the case. If there is no law protecting a class of people from discrimination, then there can be no claim of same. You may have learned differently on television, but alas it is not the case.

"Sexual orientation is a protected class at the state level in quite a few states. But you're glossing over the whole discrimnation against atheists bit. Religion most certainly is a protected class at the federal level."

Actually that is true, but then the issue of the status of the Boy Scouts come into play vis-a-vis its relationship with state vs. federal law. In addition, it is a quasi-religious organization and, as a result, it may make decisions acording to its religious tenants.

"So if I'm a gay boy with no friends, ie not part of a subculture (which is bogus anyways, it's like saying all black people know each other and are part of the same culture), and haven't slept with another boy yet, ie haven't committed a homosexual action, the Scouts should have to allow me to join?"

I think a persuasive argument can be made to allow that person into the Scouts on the basis you describe. As a follow up question: if homosexuals do not form a "subculture" then how can it possibly be more than conduct as it would not inform the homosexual person's entire life?


"Basically, you're saying that since the stuff written down doesn't say it, it doesn't exist. Those of us who go by "reality" and not "some paper somewhere" have issue with that assessment."

You mean like that pesky "some paper somewhere" called "the Constitution"? Without that "paper" you have no rights at all in this country. The "reality" is that all of our "rights" are defined and created and codied on "some paper somewhere" without which there is no law or rights.

"Ah, my favorite logical fallacy: "'Every church since the beginning of time has been just like my church, because I can't possibly conceive of anything being different."'

Well it is certainly that needs to be addressed if one claims that one's teaches derive from a similar source.

"This isn't only about gays. It's also about Athiest and is starting to get to the point where it's also about Pagans, Muslims and Jews (although they haven't made that official yet). And Athiesm is still considered a religion which does make it discrimination."

Is Athiesm considered a religon? WHat Supreme COurt decision said that as I do not recall (that is a serious not sarcastic question)? If there is no decision from same then it is not a religon - and I dont think it's been declared as such.

An interesting ontological question - one would think that athiests would have a problem being grouped in as a "religon" when it obviosuly is not one and professes a philosophy that directly opposes religous belief. WHy haven't teh athiests come out against being classed as a "religon"? I suppose it may be that there is a lack of integrity there.

Thisbymaster: Being gay can be overcome through counciling.

So can being Christian. Really, I can recommend some good therapists that will help remove your affliction.

The_Pole_Of_Justice

You are right. I assumed a Christian perspective because my question was about Christian churches. Look at my original post, it was all about orthodox Christianity. Of course I know other churches are okay with it. The Venus temples in Greece used to have prostitute/priestesses. There are Hindu sects that concentrate on the sexual aspect of reality. I'm not asking about them. I'm specifically asking about gay Christian churches and their theology.

Thisbymaster

Being gay can be overcome through counciling. I think they should let them in, then put them into intensive programs showing whats wrong with them and helping them come to reason underlying all the media bullshait they get fed.

Seeing that your own profile indicates that you're a computer programmer and a nerd, I suggest you enter the real world. Ex-gay programs don't work. See Exodus International as an example.

/obvious

shamus414: Actually no, that is not the case. If there is no law protecting a class of people from discrimination, then there can be no claim of same.

Amendment XIV - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Actually that is true, but then the issue of the status of the Boy Scouts come into play vis-a-vis its relationship with state vs. federal law. In addition, it is a quasi-religious organization and, as a result, it may make decisions acording to its religious tenants.

1) How much do its tenants pay in rent?
2) Sure, the Scouts can make decisions based on their religious tenets, but they risk losing public money if they discriminate. Nobody is saying the Scouts can't discriminate to their hearts content - they are saying that the Scouts cannot discriminate with public money.

Thisbymaster
If you really yourself, you wouldn't were clothing or even use a toilet.

No, you wouldn't even "were" (sic) clothing or use a toilet. I'm naturally picky about being clean.

You are nothing more then the product of the environment and your genetics. Because they have found more evidence that it is more to do with environment, you can over come that. Being gay can be overcome through counciling.

So can being straight. It doesn't happen as often, but as William Burroughs said, you can be made to be sexually attracted to "an old boot" given the right stimuli.

When will these stupid farks get over their "it can be changed, so the tradition must be right by default" crap?

Welease Woderwick!

The Episcopal Church does not officially teach that homosexuality is not a sin. It has not changed its formularies, the canons, the doctrines, or the Prayer Book. Granted, many prelates teach that it is ok, but it is still not an official teaching. Also, the acceptance of gay sex as not a sin is an innovation in the last generation, and not an historical Anglican teaching. Finally, the Anglican Communion will split over this sort of liberal teaching.