From: anthropo@carina.unm.edu (Dominick V. Zurlo)
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 00:01:31 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Distribution: usa

In article <hill.715369256@galena12> hill@rtsg.mot.com (Karen Hill) writes:
>anthropo@carina.unm.edu (Dominick V. Zurlo) writes:
>> 3). Again, stop being ethnocentric.  You may consider it immoral for an
>>individual to sleep around, but many cultures around the world encourage it.
>>Just because you do not prescribe to it does not make it immoral.  Just not
>>within your beliefs.  So, gay or straight, doesn't matter in this instance.
>
>So what we have here, is that anything is ok (moral, whatever) as long as
>someone believes it is and prescribes to that kind of behavior or belief?
 For that person, yes.  If those beliefs are not forced upon others, and
so long as they are not harmful to others.  We may consider it barbaric, 
but among many technologically primitive cultures, clothing of any sort is
for use only in bad weather or ceremonies, and is considered a nuisance 
otherwise.  The aborigonese in Australia perform not only circumcisions,
but also subincisions on their maturing boys.  It's a part of their 
culture, not mine, and that leaves me no room to judge their
morality or "correctness" because they have different standards.  However, 
here in the US, we are working on the premise that all men are equal, 
therefore, various subcultures within American society are equal, and 
denying them rights are improper and immoral as our moral charted is the US 
Constitution.  And hypocritical.  Since the BSA includes serving God and 
country, to decry the countries charter is to decry the country and 
overturn one of the bases of scouting.  I have the right to the pursuit of
happiness, and for me that includes being gay.   

>So that must mean that there are no longer any absolutes. Nothing is absolutely
>right and nothing is absolutely wrong because someone, somewhere believes it
>is ok.
 Correct. there are no absolutes when dealing with culture and society.
>
>What would happen to society under this premise?
 Good question.  probably one of two things, either total anarchy, or
total acceptance.  I would hope for the later. >
>> 4).So, you're fairly rigid in your beliefs.  Then if you don't like the 
>>scoutmaster/other leaders in a troop, find another one.  Troops split 
>>over smaller issues than this continually.  if a troop has a gay leader, 
>>and you don't like that, find a troop that doesn't have one.  There are
>>definately enough troops to do that.  Just as you;d attend another 
>>synagogue.    >-- 
>
>Ok...say you have a scout troop where X ( where X is a significant portion of
>the troop) number of scouts and their parents do not prescribe to 
>homosexual behavior. Say also that the scout leader is gay. Who should
>leave...all those "homophobe" scouts and their families or the
>gay scout leader? Who chooses who's rights are more important here? If
>either side leaves, discrimination can be claimed.
 if the BSA allows lesbigays, this situation would not happen after the 
initial policy change because then most of the gay leaders would be open,
and people would know to begin with, or at least know of the possibility. 
Yes, that would take awhile to happen, but it will happen eventually. 
SO, in the scenarion, it would not be discrimination to leave and 
found or find another troop.  as I said, troops are constantly splitting
over less devisive issues.  The first troop I was in had been formed 
that way several years before, mainly because the activities were not 
enough for some of the boys, so they split off and formed another 
troop.  If people sit down and work things out, I'm postive that 
everyone will be satisfied, rather then just some. 
Also, just because the leader is gay does not mean that the boys in the
troop need to be.  If they are uncomfortable, they by all means, the 
majority should stay, and the minority leave.  We're not talking discrim
here, we're talking working things out.  We're also not talking about 
excluding anyone, but leaving them the choice.  As it stands now,
gays don't have a choice aboutbeing in the BSA.  Which is the greater 
wrong if your posed scenario were to be considered wrong?
>
>-Karen Hill
>
Dominick V. Zurlo


Newsgroups: rec.scouting,alt.discrimination,chi.general,alt.atheism,alt.politics.homosexuality