Takei Reacts to Boy Scouts Announcement

[R. Star]

The BSA is a private organization and is free to set it's own standards for admission.

I'm sure some businesses would love if that was true. Chick-fil-A would probably live to kick out gays and probably color folks as well.

What a poltiically absurd age we live in when people think where you do or don't eat is making a religious/political statement. The black thing is new to me though, any substance to that or just naysaying?

Certainly the homosexual issue's going to come up in all kinds of places, and as a country we're more tolerant than we were even twenty years ago. I'd like to think the same is true in the next twenty. Whatever else it was a good thing for liberty to see a president endorse homosexual rights, even as much as it amused me that four years ago he said marriage was between a man and a woman. His position "evolved" whereas his opponent "flip-flops" oh.. gotta love politics.

 

[Bubbles McGee]

and as a country we're more tolerant than we were even twenty years ago.

Really? Have you talked to any brownish people (especially the ones waiting in lines behind you at the airport or in Gitmo)? They might beg to differ.

 

[Doug Otte]

Waitaminute - what about tolerance for the rights of the Boy Scouts to associate - or not associate - with whomever they choose?
What about the right to be prejudiced? To be bigoted? To have one's own opinions and the freedom to associate as one will?
Let's remember, the Boy Scouts is not a government agency or in any other way affiliated with the government. Now, it has received certain perqs from the government, and those have been challenged (and often defeated) on the basis of the Establishment Clause.
But let's not lose sight of the fact that it is a cherished (if eroding) right in this country for private entities to engage in what more enlightened minds deem "wrong-think."

I don't think anyone here is advocating that the BSA can't legally admit whom it wants. We're just saying that we think it's wrong and we'll no longer support the organization with our wallets nor in any other manner.

And I support Takei in his efforts to publicize the issue.

Doug

 

[BillJ]

Waitaminute - what about tolerance for the rights of the Boy Scouts to associate - or not associate - with whomever they choose?
What about the right to be prejudiced? To be bigoted? To have one's own opinions and the freedom to associate as one will?
Let's remember, the Boy Scouts is not a government agency or in any other way affiliated with the government. Now, it has received certain perqs from the government, and those have been challenged (and often defeated) on the basis of the Establishment Clause.
But let's not lose sight of the fact that it is a cherished (if eroding) right in this country for private entities to engage in what more enlightened minds deem "wrong-think."

I don't think anyone here is advocating that the BSA can't legally admit whom it wants. We're just saying that we think it's wrong and we'll no longer support the organization with our wallets nor in any other manner.

And I support Takei in his efforts to publicize the issue.

Doug

I just wonder how people would feel if this discrimination was based on the color of ones skin instead of sexuality?

 

[Doug Otte]

Waitaminute - what about tolerance for the rights of the Boy Scouts to associate - or not associate - with whomever they choose?
What about the right to be prejudiced? To be bigoted? To have one's own opinions and the freedom to associate as one will?
Let's remember, the Boy Scouts is not a government agency or in any other way affiliated with the government. Now, it has received certain perqs from the government, and those have been challenged (and often defeated) on the basis of the Establishment Clause.
But let's not lose sight of the fact that it is a cherished (if eroding) right in this country for private entities to engage in what more enlightened minds deem "wrong-think."

I don't think anyone here is advocating that the BSA can't legally admit whom it wants. We're just saying that we think it's wrong and we'll no longer support the organization with our wallets nor in any other manner.

And I support Takei in his efforts to publicize the issue.

Doug

I just wonder how people would feel if this discrimination was based on the color of ones skin instead of sexuality?

There would probably be lawsuits, but maybe there will be in this situation, too.

 

[wissaboo]

I find it incredibly disturbing that an organization for children is even interested in what their sexual orientation is. what age do they start asking them about it? 6? 10? 12?

 

[Ssosmcin]

I'm sure some businesses would love if that was true. Chick-fil-A would probably live to kick out gays and probably color folks as well.

From what I can see, Chick-Fil-a has nothing against people of color. Just alternative liefstyles.

 

[UFO]

To be honest, as a kid, all of the messages sailed way over my head.

Hmmm, perhaps you and others, just think it went over your heads? Osmosis is a wonderful thing.

When it comes to prejudice, they had maybe one or two episodes that touched on it (one blatantly) and the rest of the time McCoy was ragging on Spock's pointy ears and green blood.

I suspect it may have more that one or two episodes though it may not have be colour based necessarily, but in any event I doubt anyone thinks McCoy is a racist. Could it be you are confusing racism with essentially good natured banter?

And Star Trek wasn't "all about the messages." It wasn't an hour long sermon; it was primarily an intelligent sci-fi adventure show trying to bring in a large enough audience to stay afloat. I personally find the "morality play" aspect of the series to be overinflated. Sure, a person would watch Trek for years and never get past it being a fun show with good stories and engaging actors.

I've heard that sort of thing before. Usually in a different forum if memory serves. Not I suppose, its impossible for that to be the case. However I think it is fair to say that if you became a fan three odd years ago and haven't explored further, you are much less likely to be influenced (for the better) by Star Trek's messages.

 

[R. Star]

I find it incredibly disturbing that an organization for children is even interested in what their sexual orientation is. what age do they start asking them about it? 6? 10? 12?

Maybe you should read up before making broad statements. They're worried about the scoutmasters, the adults that supervise the said children.

That's what the debate is about, not the sexual orientation of the children.

 

[1001001]

I find it incredibly disturbing that an organization for children is even interested in what their sexual orientation is. what age do they start asking them about it? 6? 10? 12?

Maybe you should read up before making broad statements. They're worried about the scoutmasters, the adults that supervise the said children.

That's what the debate is about, not the sexual orientation of the children.

Boy Scouts do indeed revoke membership of any member who comes out as being gay.

http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/Boy-Scouts-reaffirm-ban-on-gays-162813256.html

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- "Following a confidential two-year review, the Boy Scouts of America on Tuesday reaffirmed its ban on gays, both as members and leaders (emphasis mine)."

Matt Comer has told his story many times. He says he was kicked out of the Boy Scouts at 14, after coming out.

Boy Scouts of America issued a position paper, cited here:

http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/bsa_gay_policy.html

"The Boy Scouts of America also places strong emphasis on traditional family values as being necessary components of a strong, healthy society. The Scouting program is designed to be a shared, family experience.

We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirements in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts.​

Because of these beliefs, the Boy Scouts of America does not accept homosexuals as members or as leaders, whether in volunteer or professional capacities." (Emphasis mine)​

This position is also well documented in other places, such as various news stories and wikipedia. It seems pretty easy to find.

It certainly seems to me they go beyond the adults...???​

 

[Doug Otte]

I find it incredibly disturbing that an organization for children is even interested in what their sexual orientation is. what age do they start asking them about it? 6? 10? 12?

Maybe you should read up before making broad statements. They're worried about the scoutmasters, the adults that supervise the said children.

That's what the debate is about, not the sexual orientation of the children.

You bring up an interesting point. Does the BSA ban on homosexuals apply only to adult scoutmasters, etc. or does it also apply to kids? If not, why not?

 

[Ssosmcin]

I doubt anyone thinks McCoy is a racist. Could it be you are confusing racism with essentially good natured banter?

Sometimes it was, sometimes it was McCoy being pissed and spitting out the easiest insult he could think of. Replace McCoy saying to Spock "you stubborn, pointy eared Vulcan!" with McCoy saying to Sulu "you stupid, slanty eyed Jap!" Even in jest between friends, that's pushing it. At least Spock finally throttled Bones for it in All Our Yesterdays.

Just saying that sometimes the series let certain things go in order to show "banter." Things which could be taken a different way. I'll give them props for everyone being pissed at Mr. Boma for saying that stuff in Galileo Seven, where it really was racism.

And Star Trek wasn't "all about the messages." It wasn't an hour long sermon; it was primarily an intelligent sci-fi adventure show trying to bring in a large enough audience to stay afloat. I personally find the "morality play" aspect of the series to be overinflated. Sure, a person would watch Trek for years and never get past it being a fun show with good stories and engaging actors.

I've heard that sort of thing before. Usually in a different forum if memory serves. Now I suppose, its impossible for that to be the case. However I think it is fair to say that if you became a fan three odd years ago and haven't explored further, you are much less likely to be influenced (for the better) by Star Trek's messages.

Well, I've been watching the series since I was 4 and I'm 45 now and I still don't think they were all about the preaching. According to Justman and Solow, they were primarily just trying to make an intelligent hit show. They put in a message when someone had something to say, but at the end of the day they had a show to get out and often they went for a good dramatic hour of television. They weren't 700 Club or Mister Rogers. You're not going to become a great human being or ditch the old prejudices by watching Star Trek. The messages are easy to ignore if you just want to enjoy the series as an entertaining and engaging sci-fi show.

 

[UFO]

I doubt anyone thinks McCoy is a racist. Could it be you are confusing racism with essentially good natured banter?

Sometimes it was, sometimes it was McCoy being pissed and spitting out the easiest insult he could think of. Replace McCoy saying to Spock "you stubborn, pointy eared Vulcan!" with McCoy saying to Sulu "you stupid, slanty eyed Jap!" Even in jest between friends, that's pushing it. At least Spock finally throttled Bones for it in All Our Yesterdays.

I do take your point and personal digs aren’t the best at anytime, but I feel racism has more to do with intent and saying things you know the other person will find offensive. "stubborn and pointy eared" may not bother Spock much, though I concede there is no real difference between "pointy eared" and "slanty eyed" except perhaps to the individuals concerned. However few people like being call "stupid". I would say its more a matter of potentially racist language than McCoy being a racist. A sign of the time perhaps?

Just saying that sometimes the series let certain things go in order to show "banter." Things which could be taken a different way. I'll give them props for everyone being pissed at Mr. Boma for saying that stuff in Galileo Seven, where it really was racism.

Yes and props for Kirk pulling up that guy who made remarks about Spock on the bridge in the "submarine episode" (Balance of Terror) when they "first" saw a Romulan.

And Star Trek wasn't "all about the messages." It wasn't an hour long sermon; it was primarily an intelligent sci-fi adventure show trying to bring in a large enough audience to stay afloat. I personally find the "morality play" aspect of the series to be overinflated. Sure, a person would watch Trek for years and never get past it being a fun show with good stories and engaging actors.

I've heard that sort of thing before. Usually in a different forum if memory serves. Now I suppose, its [not] impossible for that to be the case. However I think it is fair to say that if you became a fan three odd years ago and haven't explored further, you are much less likely to be influenced (for the better) by Star Trek's messages.

Well, I've been watching the series since I was 4 and I'm 45 now and I still don't think they were all about the preaching. According to Justman and Solow, they were primarily just trying to make an intelligent hit show. They put in a message when someone had something to say, but at the end of the day they had a show to get out and often they went for a good dramatic hour of television. They weren't 700 Club or Mister Rogers. You're not going to become a great human being or ditch the old prejudices by watching Star Trek. The messages are easy to ignore if you just want to enjoy the series as an entertaining and engaging sci-fi show.

No, I agree they aren't all about "preaching", itself a rather derogatory word. But I feel there is an overall attitude most of the time which some have described as "severely unrealistic and downright fake" in these cynical times. I always find it uplifting or hopeful and not at all implausible. My view is if you put garbage in you get garbage out, so we should stop doing that (my sermon for today ).

As for the messages etc, I’m not sure we as individuals are in the best position to know if they are effecting us or not. Not everything happens in the conscious mind.