Boy Scouts being discriminated against?

[TexasTiger 13,029]

I wouldn't personally doubt that the government supports a few gay agencies just as they do a few African-American ones. I think the reason they argue they do that is because they are a minority and are given unfair treatment and so they think the government needs to help and step in. I disagree with a lot of that and am not advocating it.

I just want to move past assumption and speculation and deal with actual facts. Some folks have been making certain assertions on this thread. Time to back them up and then we'll see what facts there are and go from there.

[Tiger Al 0]

I just want to move past assumption and speculation and deal with actual facts. Some folks have been making certain assertions on this thread. Time to back them up and then we'll see what facts there are and go from there.

Why don't you limit your desires to something more achievable...like world peace.

[CCTAU 3,350]

Bottom line is that there was no problem until the gay agenda became fashionable for libruls. Now that we either accept the gay agenda or be labeled "ignorant", it's come down to discriminating against the BSA because they uphold their morals. The government gives plenty of money to gay friendly associations. make no mistake about it, this was like Mike said, all about sacrificing the children for the gays.

And to even bring up the KKK and the BSA in the same breath is despicable.

I don't think anyone here has used the word "ignorant" except you. We have done a pretty damn good job of sticking to the issues and not devolving into personal attacks, namecalling and such. Your side has not.

You also seem to forget that BSA discriminates against atheists and agnostics, too. How does Philadelphia, birthplace of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, justify supporting a group that also practices religious discrimination?

Then basically you have selective reading. But we knew that already. And just skip over KKK comment, why don't ya.

And whoever compared being gay to being black is very confused. Ask any black person if it's the same.

I don't have the time of energy to look up a list of gay friendly organizations that get government money. Pretty much any of them that allow gays to participate qualify.

Go ahead and sell your children out for gay equality. Thank God there are still groups like the BSA who refuse to back down. We all know that a few of you in here care only for the special interests groups, no need to solidify it any longer. So until you have children AND let them participate in an overnight woods extravaganza with a gay chaperon, DON'T TELL THE REST OF US IS IT'S OK. You force it on your children, I will not.

How can you advocate forcing 98% of the people into accepting the 2%? By cutting funds to the moral groups, that's how.

[channonc 466]

We all know that a few of you in here care only for the special interests groups, no need to solidify it any longer.

BTW, the BSA are considered a special interest group.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

The government gives plenty of money to gay friendly associations.

Please list those. I'm "ignorant" of them.

I guess you don't really know of any.

[Tiger Al 0]

Bottom line is that there was no problem until the gay agenda became fashionable for libruls. Now that we either accept the gay agenda or be labeled "ignorant", it's come down to discriminating against the BSA because they uphold their morals. The government gives plenty of money to gay friendly associations. make no mistake about it, this was like Mike said, all about sacrificing the children for the gays.

And to even bring up the KKK and the BSA in the same breath is despicable.

I don't think anyone here has used the word "ignorant" except you. We have done a pretty damn good job of sticking to the issues and not devolving into personal attacks, namecalling and such. Your side has not.

You also seem to forget that BSA discriminates against atheists and agnostics, too. How does Philadelphia, birthplace of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, justify supporting a group that also practices religious discrimination?

Then basically you have selective reading. But we knew that already.

What does this mean? Explain, please.

And just skip over KKK comment, why don't ya.

I can recognize feigned indignation when I see it.

And whoever compared being gay to being black is very confused. Ask any black person if it's the same.

Who compared being black to being gay?

I don't have the time of energy to look up a list of gay friendly organizations that get government money. Pretty much any of them that allow gays to participate qualify.

You spent the time and energy making the assertion. What 'gay friendly' organizations get government money?

Go ahead and sell your children out for gay equality. Thank God there are still groups like the BSA who refuse to back down. We all know that a few of you in here care only for the special interests groups, no need to solidify it any longer. So until you have children AND let them participate in an overnight woods extravaganza with a gay chaperon, DON'T TELL THE REST OF US IS IT'S OK. You force it on your children, I will not.

Vitriolic assumptions.

How can you advocate forcing 98% of the people into accepting the 2%? By cutting funds to the moral groups, that's how.

I haven't advocated any such thing. I've even said several times that the BSA has the right to discriminate if they want. They don't have the right to special favors from some of the very people they discriminate against. It's really that simple.

[autiger4life 3]

And whoever compared being gay to being black is very confused. Ask any black person if it's the same.

See that is how a comparison works. You compare two things that ARE NOT THE SAME. For instance, Bear Bryant is loved by people, God is loved by people.

Are they the same, no. Are the types of love the same, no. Does everyone who loves God also love Bear Bryant, no. Do they have one thing in common, yes. Do they have everything else in common, no.

You see, you can compare two things that are completely different, but have one thing in common. Where you had your misunderstanding is where you assumed that by comparing gays and blacks that we were saying that they were the same. But when you say that gays are treated differently than straights, and blacks are treated differently than whites, then this is a comparison, not an attempt to say they are the same.

So until you have children AND let them participate in an overnight woods extravaganza with a gay chaperon, DON'T TELL THE REST OF US IS IT'S OK. You force it on your children, I will not.

Once again, no one is asking you to make your children go on a trip to the woods with a gay person. No one is saying the BSA have to let gays be scout masters, we are just saying that the government should not give tax money to a group that does discriminate based on sexual orientation.

[CCTAU 3,350]

Read the bold type. You can do that can't you?

I don't think anyone here has used the word "ignorant" except you. We have done a pretty damn good job of sticking to the issues and not devolving into personal attacks, namecalling and such. Your side has not.

Try reading posts # 101 and 108.

And just skip over KKK comment, why don't ya.

I can recognize feigned indignation when I see it.

See post 119.

And whoever compared being gay to being black is very confused. Ask any black person if it's the same.

Who compared being black to being gay?

See posts # 37 and 40. Maybe I took it the wrong way.

You spent the time and energy making the assertion. What 'gay friendly' organizations get government money?

See post # 8.

Go ahead and sell your children out for gay equality. Thank God there are still groups like the BSA who refuse to back down. We all know that a few of you in here care only for the special interests groups, no need to solidify it any longer. So until you have children AND let them participate in an overnight woods extravaganza with a gay chaperon, DON'T TELL THE REST OF US IS IT'S OK. You force it on your children, I will not.

Vitriolic assumptions.

Stand up and fight for the gays with you being a good example and putting your children in the hands of a gay leader. But don't expect us to.

How can you advocate forcing 98% of the people into accepting the 2%? By cutting funds to the moral groups, that's how.

I haven't advocated any such thing. I've even said several times that the BSA has the right to discriminate if they want. They don't have the right to special favors from some of the very people they discriminate against. It's really that simple.

It's always simple to punish the non-gay-loving groups in the name of equality.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

This thread has been quite illustrative. The "libruls" have all agreed that the Boy Scouts are free to discriminate against gays. This has been repeated numerous times. Nonetheless, the so-called conservatives keep claiming that the "libruls" are promoting the "gay agenda" which they believe is centered around gay men taking boys to the woods.

On the other hand, the "libruls" disapprove of the government handout to the private special interest group. The so-called conservatives repeately cry that their favored private special interest group is discriminated against because after years of receiving welfare handouts from the government, the private special interest group is told they have to pay their own way and pay the market rate to the hardworking taxpayers from whom they have received a longstanding free ride.

So-called conservatives have spent years throwing around the labels "conservative" and "liberal" as if they are imbued with great meaning. But as this thread has clearly exposed, so many so-called conservatives actually have no committment to the conservative principles they claim to embrace. In fact, the modern conservative is largely defined by what they are against. They're the "antis". Anti-this group, anti-that group, but no commitment to actual conservative principles.

[channonc 466]

**CRICKETS**

[Tigermike 3,055]

This thread has been quite illustrative. The "libruls" have all agreed that the Boy Scouts are free to discriminate against gays. This has been repeated numerous times. Nonetheless, the so-called conservatives keep claiming that the "libruls" are promoting the "gay agenda" which they believe is centered around gay men taking boys to the woods.

On the other hand, the "libruls" disapprove of the government handout to the private special interest group. The so-called conservatives repeately cry that their favored private special interest group is discriminated against because after years of receiving welfare handouts from the government, the private special interest group is told they have to pay their own way and pay the market rate to the hardworking taxpayers from whom they have received a longstanding free ride.

So-called conservatives have spent years throwing around the labels "conservative" and "liberal" as if they are imbued with great meaning. But as this thread has clearly exposed, so many so-called conservatives actually have no committment to the conservative principles they claim to embrace. In fact, the modern conservative is largely defined by what they are against. They're the "antis". Anti-this group, anti-that group, but no commitment to actual conservative principles.

But using tax money in this manner didn't seem to bother you guys in the least. You guys position seems both selective and hypocritical. You guys all have your panties balled up over tax money, boy scouts and gays. But don't care to comment on other instances of misspent tax money.

**CRICKETS**

Crickets hell this thread is 9 pages long.

[channonc 466]

This thread has been quite illustrative. The "libruls" have all agreed that the Boy Scouts are free to discriminate against gays. This has been repeated numerous times. Nonetheless, the so-called conservatives keep claiming that the "libruls" are promoting the "gay agenda" which they believe is centered around gay men taking boys to the woods.

On the other hand, the "libruls" disapprove of the government handout to the private special interest group. The so-called conservatives repeately cry that their favored private special interest group is discriminated against because after years of receiving welfare handouts from the government, the private special interest group is told they have to pay their own way and pay the market rate to the hardworking taxpayers from whom they have received a longstanding free ride.

So-called conservatives have spent years throwing around the labels "conservative" and "liberal" as if they are imbued with great meaning. But as this thread has clearly exposed, so many so-called conservatives actually have no committment to the conservative principles they claim to embrace. In fact, the modern conservative is largely defined by what they are against. They're the "antis". Anti-this group, anti-that group, but no commitment to actual conservative principles.

But using tax money in this manner didn't seem to bother you guys in the least. You guys position seems both selective and hypocritical. You guys all have your panties balled up over tax money, boy scouts and gays. But don't care to comment on other instances of misspent tax money.

Not one person said that using tax money in "this manner" was acceptable. In fact, if you read the whole thread, each of us has stated repeatedly that it is not acceptable for the taxpayers to give special interest groups tax breaks. rent breaks, etc. to groups that discriminate. So please give an example of where our position is hypocritical.

[Tigermike 3,055]

This thread has been quite illustrative. The "libruls" have all agreed that the Boy Scouts are free to discriminate against gays. This has been repeated numerous times. Nonetheless, the so-called conservatives keep claiming that the "libruls" are promoting the "gay agenda" which they believe is centered around gay men taking boys to the woods.

On the other hand, the "libruls" disapprove of the government handout to the private special interest group. The so-called conservatives repeately cry that their favored private special interest group is discriminated against because after years of receiving welfare handouts from the government, the private special interest group is told they have to pay their own way and pay the market rate to the hardworking taxpayers from whom they have received a longstanding free ride.

So-called conservatives have spent years throwing around the labels "conservative" and "liberal" as if they are imbued with great meaning. But as this thread has clearly exposed, so many so-called conservatives actually have no committment to the conservative principles they claim to embrace. In fact, the modern conservative is largely defined by what they are against. They're the "antis". Anti-this group, anti-that group, but no commitment to actual conservative principles.

But using tax money in this manner didn't seem to bother you guys in the least. You guys position seems both selective and hypocritical. You guys all have your panties balled up over tax money, boy scouts and gays. But don't care to comment on other instances of misspent tax money.

Not one person said that using tax money in "this manner" was acceptable. In fact, if you read the whole thread, each of us has stated repeatedly that it is not acceptable for the taxpayers to give special interest groups tax breaks. rent breaks, etc. to groups that discriminate. So please give an example of where our position is hypocritical.

You need to read my post and read the article at the link provided.

[CCTAU 3,350]

This thread has been quite illustrative. The "libruls" have all agreed that the Boy Scouts are free to discriminate against gays. This has been repeated numerous times. Nonetheless, the so-called conservatives keep claiming that the "libruls" are promoting the "gay agenda" which they believe is centered around gay men taking boys to the woods.

On the other hand, the "libruls" disapprove of the government handout to the private special interest group. The so-called conservatives repeately cry that their favored private special interest group is discriminated against because after years of receiving welfare handouts from the government, the private special interest group is told they have to pay their own way and pay the market rate to the hardworking taxpayers from whom they have received a longstanding free ride.

So-called conservatives have spent years throwing around the labels "conservative" and "liberal" as if they are imbued with great meaning. But as this thread has clearly exposed, so many so-called conservatives actually have no committment to the conservative principles they claim to embrace. In fact, the modern conservative is largely defined by what they are against. They're the "antis". Anti-this group, anti-that group, but no commitment to actual conservative principles.

But using tax money in this manner didn't seem to bother you guys in the least. You guys position seems both selective and hypocritical. You guys all have your panties balled up over tax money, boy scouts and gays. But don't care to comment on other instances of misspent tax money.

Not one person said that using tax money in "this manner" was acceptable. In fact, if you read the whole thread, each of us has stated repeatedly that it is not acceptable for the taxpayers to give special interest groups tax breaks. rent breaks, etc. to groups that discriminate. So please give an example of where our position is hypocritical.

But see. That's the problem. When it comes to the gay agenda, libruls will bend over backwards fighting for "equality". When its something like Mike posted, then it's "Not one person said that using tax money in "this manner" was acceptable". But not one of you will get up in arms about it. But the whole librul Army would rather stick a spit up the collective ass of the BSA and roast them over the fire because they don't allow gays. The Philly gubment bowed down to the gay agenda once again. The BSA helps build and add to the fabric of society. Gays help destroy what little is left of the moral fabric of society. Your complacency in this and in matters of islamic fascism is what will eventually help destroy a once proud nation. What has been said here is that we choose gays over fine institutions such as the BSA.

[Tiger Al 0]

But using tax money in this manner didn't seem to bother you guys in the least. You guys position seems both selective and hypocritical. You guys all have your panties balled up over tax money, boy scouts and gays. But don't care to comment on other instances of misspent tax money.

It doesn't look like it bothers anyone. It's been up for 4 days now and hasn't gotten one response.

[Tiger Al 0]

Read the bold type. You can do that can't you?

I don't think anyone here has used the word "ignorant" except you. We have done a pretty damn good job of sticking to the issues and not devolving into personal attacks, namecalling and such. Your side has not.

Try reading posts # 101 and 108.

You are right, I am wrong.

And just skip over KKK comment, why don't ya.

I can recognize feigned indignation when I see it.

See post 119.

Again, I can recognize feigned indignation when I see it. You seem to have gotten so puffed up over my analogy that YOU skipped right over the rest of what I said which was, "While I understand that BSA is not the KKK, they do discriminate nevertheless."

And whoever compared being gay to being black is very confused. Ask any black person if it's the same.

Who compared being black to being gay?

See posts # 37 and 40. Maybe I took it the wrong way.

I think you "took it the wrong way." autiger4life was clear as to what the comparison between the two groups was. He said, "...to make sure that there are equal rights for minorities and they are treated fairly by the government. " He could've just as easily compared the minority status that gays and the physically handicapped share. I think you understood that, though.

You spent the time and energy making the assertion. What 'gay friendly' organizations get government money?

See post # 8.

In 1996 the granting procedures for the NEA were changed. The NEA didn't award the grants that TitanTiger mentioned directly to the artists. The grant for the Mapplethorpe series was given to the Institute of Contemporary Art at the University of Pennsylvania who then used a portion of that money for the photos. The 'Piss Christ" photo was done by Andres Serrano who had been awarded a $15,000 grant from the Southeast Center for Contemporary Art, an organization that received NEA support. The NEA has also awarded grants to the YMCA to establish literary arts centers across the country. I believe "YMCA" stands for Young Men's Christian Association. Oddly enough, the director of the NEA when the Mapplethorpe and Serrano controversies came about was Frank Hodsoll, appointed by Ronald Reagan.

Go ahead and sell your children out for gay equality. Thank God there are still groups like the BSA who refuse to back down. We all know that a few of you in here care only for the special interests groups, no need to solidify it any longer. So until you have children AND let them participate in an overnight woods extravaganza with a gay chaperon, DON'T TELL THE REST OF US IS IT'S OK. You force it on your children, I will not.

Vitriolic assumptions.

Stand up and fight for the gays with you being a good example and putting your children in the hands of a gay leader. But don't expect us to.

Still vitriolic.

How can you advocate forcing 98% of the people into accepting the 2%? By cutting funds to the moral groups, that's how.

I haven't advocated any such thing. I've even said several times that the BSA has the right to discriminate if they want. They don't have the right to special favors from some of the very people they discriminate against. It's really that simple.

It's always simple to punish the non-gay-loving groups in the name of equality.

It's simple to apply the law.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

This thread has been quite illustrative. The "libruls" have all agreed that the Boy Scouts are free to discriminate against gays. This has been repeated numerous times. Nonetheless, the so-called conservatives keep claiming that the "libruls" are promoting the "gay agenda" which they believe is centered around gay men taking boys to the woods.

On the other hand, the "libruls" disapprove of the government handout to the private special interest group. The so-called conservatives repeately cry that their favored private special interest group is discriminated against because after years of receiving welfare handouts from the government, the private special interest group is told they have to pay their own way and pay the market rate to the hardworking taxpayers from whom they have received a longstanding free ride.

So-called conservatives have spent years throwing around the labels "conservative" and "liberal" as if they are imbued with great meaning. But as this thread has clearly exposed, so many so-called conservatives actually have no committment to the conservative principles they claim to embrace. In fact, the modern conservative is largely defined by what they are against. They're the "antis". Anti-this group, anti-that group, but no commitment to actual conservative principles.

But using tax money in this manner didn't seem to bother you guys in the least. You guys position seems both selective and hypocritical. You guys all have your panties balled up over tax money, boy scouts and gays. But don't care to comment on other instances of misspent tax money.

Not one person said that using tax money in "this manner" was acceptable. In fact, if you read the whole thread, each of us has stated repeatedly that it is not acceptable for the taxpayers to give special interest groups tax breaks. rent breaks, etc. to groups that discriminate. So please give an example of where our position is hypocritical.

But see. That's the problem. When it comes to the gay agenda, libruls will bend over backwards fighting for "equality". When its something like Mike posted, then it's "Not one person said that using tax money in "this manner" was acceptable". But not one of you will get up in arms about it. But the whole librul Army would rather stick a spit up the collective ass of the BSA and roast them over the fire because they don't allow gays. The Philly gubment bowed down to the gay agenda once again. The BSA helps build and add to the fabric of society. Gays help destroy what little is left of the moral fabric of society. Your complacency in this and in matters of islamic fascism is what will eventually help destroy a once proud nation. What has been said here is that we choose gays over fine institutions such as the BSA.

You didn't see anyone get up in arms over the fact that the City of Philadelphia gave the BSA virtually free use of expensive property for decades. We are responding to you getting up in arms over that city deciding that the giveaway was over. No one here has condemned the Boy Scouts or even questioned their right to exclude gays. We've just pointed out how hypocritical you are for throwing a hissy fit and saying the BSA is discriminated against just because their handout ended.

[autiger4life 3]

But see. That's the problem. When it comes to the gay agenda, libruls will bend over backwards fighting for "equality". When its something like Mike posted, then it's "Not one person said that using tax money in "this manner" was acceptable". But not one of you will get up in arms about it. But the whole librul Army would rather stick a spit up the collective ass of the BSA and roast them over the fire because they don't allow gays. The Philly gubment bowed down to the gay agenda once again. The BSA helps build and add to the fabric of society. Gays help destroy what little is left of the moral fabric of society. Your complacency in this and in matters of islamic fascism is what will eventually help destroy a once proud nation. What has been said here is that we choose gays over fine institutions such as the BSA.

You see, the truth is that you want so bad for the "liburals" to really want to crusade for the gay agenda, when in reality it just doesn't pan out that way. It's really the "liburals" fighting for the don't give discriminatory groups free money agenda, but that doesn't work for you. It sounds much better if you can turn it into something it isn't. You have tried this entire thread to turn it into an issue about the gay agenda and it simply isn't. I am sorry but that gay agenda simply is not the issue.

[AURaptor 1,126]

I'd just like to add that I find it amazing this thread has now run for 10 pages, and I've yet to even reply.

With all that is going on in the world, THIS topic gets the most attention?

[Tiger Al 0]

I'd just like to add that I find it amazing this thread has now run for 10 pages, and I've yet to even reply.

With all that is going on in the world, THIS topic gets the most attention?

You can go under 'my controls' then click 'board settings' and change the number of posts displayed to as many as 40 per page. That's my personal preference.

But, back to the thread...out of curiosity, as neocon as you are, the gay issues don't seem to send you into warp drive like it does some of the others. Why is that? Is it that you don't care one way or the other, or that you generally agree with one side or the other but just don't comment or something else? You are normally very opinionated on most other issues. Just curious.

[AURaptor 1,126]

I'd just like to add that I find it amazing this thread has now run for 10 pages, and I've yet to even reply.

With all that is going on in the world, THIS topic gets the most attention?

You can go under 'my controls' then click 'board settings' and change the number of posts displayed to as many as 40 per page. That's my personal preference.

But, back to the thread...out of curiosity, as neocon as you are, the gay issues don't seem to send you into warp drive like it does some of the others. Why is that? Is it that you don't care one way or the other, or that you generally agree with one side or the other but just don't comment or something else? You are normally very opinionated on most other issues. Just curious.

I'm not sure I even qualify in being a " neocon". I'm not even sure what that means , specifically. I'm a conservative, true, but lean toward the Libertarian variety. Guess that's why -

[Tiger Al 0]

I'd just like to add that I find it amazing this thread has now run for 10 pages, and I've yet to even reply.

With all that is going on in the world, THIS topic gets the most attention?

You can go under 'my controls' then click 'board settings' and change the number of posts displayed to as many as 40 per page. That's my personal preference.

But, back to the thread...out of curiosity, as neocon as you are, the gay issues don't seem to send you into warp drive like it does some of the others. Why is that? Is it that you don't care one way or the other, or that you generally agree with one side or the other but just don't comment or something else? You are normally very opinionated on most other issues. Just curious.

I'm not sure I even qualify in being a " neocon". I'm not even sure what that means , specifically. I'm a conservative, true, but lean toward the Libertarian variety. Guess that's why -

OK...thanks.

[AFTiger 282]

Boy Scouts Not Welcome in Philadelphia

Philadelphia Posts Gay-Welcoming Street Markers in Center City

by KYW's John McDevitt

A dedication ceremony was held Wednesday afternoon to unveil street signs to define Philadelphia's famed "gayborhood."

Singing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow," a group of about 100 gathered at the corner of 13th and Locust Streets, in the Washington West neighborhood, where one of 36 discreet rainbow signs were unveiled. The sign is the same size as the Locust Street sign and fastened directly beneath it.

Tami Sortman is president of the Philadelphia Gay Tourism Caucus:

"Philadelphia four years ago started a gay-friendly campaign here to bring gay travelers into the city, and we felt that it was really important for these gay travelers to know when they are in the 'gayborhood' area. I live right here, just a block away, and I get people asking, 'Am I in the gayborhood yet?' "

The new signs are being erected between Broad and 11th, Chestnut to Pine Streets.

Link

[TexasTiger 13,029]

There is no logical connection between your comment and the article you post.

Boy Scouts Not Welcome in Philadelphia

Philadelphia Posts Gay-Welcoming Street Markers in Center City

by KYW's John McDevitt

A dedication ceremony was held Wednesday afternoon to unveil street signs to define Philadelphia's famed "gayborhood."

Singing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow," a group of about 100 gathered at the corner of 13th and Locust Streets, in the Washington West neighborhood, where one of 36 discreet rainbow signs were unveiled. The sign is the same size as the Locust Street sign and fastened directly beneath it.

Tami Sortman is president of the Philadelphia Gay Tourism Caucus:

"Philadelphia four years ago started a gay-friendly campaign here to bring gay travelers into the city, and we felt that it was really important for these gay travelers to know when they are in the 'gayborhood' area. I live right here, just a block away, and I get people asking, 'Am I in the gayborhood yet?' "

The new signs are being erected between Broad and 11th, Chestnut to Pine Streets.

Link

[AFTiger 282]

Think. Real hard.