Merlyn_LeRoy

What if you are asked to cite a policy that you never claimed existed?

Show me the official GSUSA policy that says they will discriminate against heterosexual men please.

You can't even follow a conversation, can you?  I've said a number of times now that their official policy is NOT that.

Wrong again.

 

GSUSA openly discriminates against heterosexual men in their practices. That's wrong, and likely illegal. Yet they have all sorts of policies and practices to allow gay and transgender people in to their ranks. So I have a better chance of being a cross-dressing man trying to get a sex change and being at my daughter's camp than I do being myself. That's discrimination.

 

The reason it is situational ethics on YOUR part is that you are defending GSUSA but vilifying BSA for their previous stance on gays.

SOME might discriminate in practice, but that isn't official policy, and if you think it's likely illegal, file a lawsuit.  I think the courts would say the GSUSA, like the BSA, is a private club and that they can discriminate any way they like.

I'm defending the GSUSA's official policy and vilifying the BSA's official policy.  I have no problem when units ignored official policy (and when they continue to ignore it now and admit atheists).

You, on the other hand, are vilifying the GSUSA as if that's their official policy.  It isn't.

By the way, if you really think it's illegal, why don't you file a lawsuit?

And that makes it right? Please. Love the situational ethics.

This isn't situational ethics, it's the difference between what official policy is and what happens in your neck of the woods.

Nope. This is pervasive across GSUSA. This is not local. This is local, region and across the country. It is a bigoted reaction based on fear. 

 

If this were a racial or gay issue it would be in the press all the time. Because it happens to heterosexual men (mostly white by the demographics) it does not make for money-making press.

It isn't official policy.  And spare me your crocodile tears.

Not going to get it to it with you. My comments stand. GSUSA are hypocrites for embracing one set of people while essentially vilifying heterosexual fathers for wanting to volunteer and camp with their daughters. It's ironic that we are not allowed to assume gay BSA leaders will have sex with boys, but we can assume the heterosexual fathers will have sex with the friends of their teenage daughters.

 

Double standard? Yup! 

That isn't a matter of official GSUSA policy, you have a local complaint.  Just like local units can exclude gays.

You create arguments out of nothing. GSUSA is the topic, not my condemnation of the archbishop.

You brought up "degenerates", as if that was pertinent.

We should be shocked that you could find a few hundred liberals to open check books for a cause?

 

I'd be more shocked if they had supported a father's right to volunteer and be treated like he's a decent human being, rather than assuming he's a degenerate.

I didn't "find" them, and your red herring is ridiculous, particularly since you haven't bothered to condemn the archbishop's shielding of actual, known degenerates.

Girl Scouts raise record amount of money after Catholic Church attacks them

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2016/03/girl-scouts-raise-record-amount-of-money-after-catholic-church-attacks-them/

..in the past how many photographers and bakers had been put out of business and legally harassed into bankruptcy because of their conscience?

None - it was because they were legally obligated as a public accommodation to serve the public and refused -- the same, legally, as refusing to serve a mixed-race marriage if it goes against the owner's conscience.

So when will the Girl Scouts accept cisgendered males into their organization?

They do.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/20/living/girl-scouts-welcomes-transgender-girls-feat/

Why shouldn't we let in girls? We cannot discriminate based on any other reason.

The BSA still discriminates on the basis of religion; the GSUSA doesn't.

I point out when people equivocate because it's a dishonest debating tactic.

I replied to your post because you replied to mine with more equivocation.

Your reply makes no sense -- "equivocation" makes words near-meaningless, so equivocating doesn't help discussions about morals or anything else.

And if everybody equivocated on the meaning of words like "discrimination", discussing morals would be impossible.

And I agreed it was discrimination, just like Restricted clubs excluding Jews.  So what are you trying to point out?

It's only discrimination in the same way that you need to be Jewish to be a rabbi or Catholic to be priest or usually a Christian to be a pastor.

Or not Jewish in order to join a Restricted club.  As in, it's exactly discrimination.

So whose moral code are we going to follow in this circumstance?  The government's codified laws, the self-justification moral code of the neighbors, or the ministry of a religious organization?  And then tell me which moral code do you wish to support and which of those codes provides the closest to the Scout Oath and Laws?  Then we can get into a discussion as to the sources of those codes. 

Cherry-picking examples can prove anything.  There are plenty of examples of bad things done by people who follow supposedly divine moral codes, and even bad things allowed by such moral codes.

By paying attention to people who are experts in the language, but who don't have an axe to grind and so disagree with the experts to whom you pay attention.

I'm not disagreeing with experts.

Then how can you determine what the original meaning is?

By paying attention to people who ARE experts in the language.  How do you determine it?

So I can't use English to determine what an English translation of the 10 Commandments means?

 

Since you're a Hebrew scholar would you mind giving a more literal translation of the 10 Commandments?

You can't determine what the original meaning is, no.  And I'm not a Hebrew scholar.

Those that make up their own moral codes do so based on the preservation of one's own self.

Every single one?  I disagree.  And there are plenty of bad god-based moral codes.

So a statement like the following implies that children are property?

 

"Do not attack my children or my property."

 

Or are you saying that if women weren't property, it would be OK to covet them?

No, I'm saying the 10 commandments considers women as property.  It's pointless to use English to argue what the commandments mean as they weren't written in it.

What a weird statement.

I agree, but they were, listed right along with all the other things owned by your neighbor that you shouldn't covet, like his slaves and animals.