Originally Posted by alias

In my opinion, a private clube can exclude or include anyone they want. If you want a private club of gays and lesbians only, you should be able to have it. That is called freedom. That is why this country was founded. You don't quite get that do you?

Originally Posted by alias

You never answered my question.....would you take the Boy Scout oath and live by it?

Originally Posted by foundit66

It is you who doesn't get it.
We don't disagree on this. I agree with everything you just said.

Now, can you get back to the other statements I made and talk about them?



This proves you didn't read what I said.
I did answer your question.

Let's just cut to the chase.
You were wrong on all four points.
You aren't honest enough to admit it.
And you're not even reading what I'm saying at this stage of the game.

Originally Posted by alias

If you agree with what I said, then why do you want the Boy scouts to admit gays? You're not making sense.

Originally Posted by alias

You never answered my question about whether you would take the Boy Scouts oath or not. If you did, I must have missed it. Would you or not?

Originally Posted by alias

I checked the thread and all you said about if you would takt the oath was that it was irrelevant.

Originally Posted by alias

I think it is relevant because your answer leads to my next question. I know why you will not answer it, it's because you know what is in the oath and it puts you on the spot. Can't handle the tough one can you.

Originally Posted by alias

This case might be going to court so we'll have to see if the Supreme Court accepts it or not.. You act as if you've already won. You haven't. If the Supreme Court wont look at it, then fine.
I still don't agree with Berkely. The town is full of airheads. They couldn't pay me to live there.

Originally Posted by foundit66

It's times like this that your mental capabilities are SERIOUSLY drawn into question... And it's not a matter of "insult". It's just a matter of observing the obvious...

What I said in post #19 of this thread was this: "The answer to your question, just to get you to stop asking it, is no. But that's irrelevant to the points that."

How is that not clear enough for you?

How the @!#%$ can you not see the answer in that statement?



I reference you to the "Flaming" thread for part of my response.
For the other, bring on your second irrelevant question, and I'll answer that as well...
Even if you lack the brains to realize it...

I really don't think you comprehend the big picture of things here.
I've already spelled out the arguments that I believe will be used in responding to what I suspect your point was.
You didn't respond to them last time either.
I'm betting after you ask your next question and try to formulate your argument, you won't respond to them the second time around...

Regardless, if you want to talk about what the "oath" says, we can do that to. I recommend we address the HISTORICAL MEANING of the oath instead of how modern reconstructionists have attempted to reinterpret it.
Of course, that'll just mean a lot of lying, denial, and obfuscation on your part...



Again, I reference you to the "Flaming" thread, considering you haven't really made any argument here, except "Flame" Berkeley.


As for your "disagreeing" with Berkeley, can you answer a question for me?
Why should Berkeley be forced to give free rent to the Boy Scouts?
I answered your question more than once when I repeated myself.
Can you answer mine once?

Originally Posted by alias

Okay, the answer is NO, you would not take the Boy Scout oath. Then tell me how are the Boy Scouts discriminating against you if you, a homosexual, will not take the oath to be a boy scout?

Originally Posted by alias

It sounds to me like it's mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by alias

Stop your damn whining. Your answer proves that your only point is to make the Boy Scouts bow to your agenda.

Originally Posted by foundit66

Wow. This is just amazing.
If the boy scouts preclude a group of people from membership, then that is discrimination. Period.
It doesn't matter if ONE INDIVIDUAL in that group (or even many individuals in that group) don't want to join. They are still discriminating against that group.

And I see this as irrelevant to the big picture, but I believe I said they discriminate again HOMOSEXUALS. Which they do.
Some homosexuals DO WANT to join the Boy Scouts, and by your logic, THOSE would still be discriminated against.



Your comments are just mind-boggling at times.
If a bus says blacks must sit at the back, and most blacks do want to sit at the back and not the front, it is STILL DISCRIMINATION.



I've asked you this question before, but you were too cowardly to address it.
HOW is denying the Boy Scouts free rent an example of "forcing" the Boy Scouts to do something?

I know you do not answer it because you know the answer shoots holes DIRECTLY in your claims of "force" and "bowing to my agenda". Can't handle the tough one can you.

Originally Posted by alias

They are not excluding a group from membership. You are excluding yourself because you will not take the oath. You just said you wouldn't take the oath. Are you confused?

Originally Posted by foundit66

Are homosexuals allowed to be a member of the Boy Scouts or not?
If they aren't, then they ARE excluding a group from membership.

How you can be so ridiculous in denying that is beyond me.

OTHER homosexuals who DO want to take that oath are forbidden.
Why did you avoid responding to THAT aspect of the discussion?
================================================== ==

And I'm going to keep repeating this until you answer it.
Next time, I don't respond to anything you say UNTIL you answer it, just like you insisted I answer the question you asked me which I HAD ALREADY ANSWERED...


I've asked you this question before, but you were too cowardly to address it.
HOW is denying the Boy Scouts free rent an example of "forcing" the Boy Scouts to do something?

I know you do not answer it because you know the answer shoots holes DIRECTLY in your claims of "force" and "bowing to my agenda". Can't handle the tough one can you.