Page 4 of 34 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 500

Thread: Reaction to gay marriage...

  1. #46
    Senior Member Bushfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Huddersfield
    Posts
    15,684
    Thanks
    426
    Thanked 2,953 Times in 1,606 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by recneps View Post
    Grapevine?
    PM on its way.
    Ewan Scott

    It seems that there are a lot of Nawyecka Comanch around....





    Nawyecka Comanch'": "Means roundabout--man says he's going one way, means to go t'other" Ethan Edwards - The Searchers



    www.upperdearnevalleynavigators.org.uk

  2. #47
    Senior Member Mallah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,224
    Thanks
    83
    Thanked 322 Times in 230 Posts
    Still not convinced TSA had a place to make this statement given that it doesn't for other such legislation passed by the gov't (or can someone provide an example) There is no part of our program or policy that relates to marriage. Linking it to our EOps policy is tenuous as that also excludes any reference to marriage.

    He who receives a good turn should never forget it; he who does one should never remember it.

  3. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,440
    Thanks
    407
    Thanked 417 Times in 268 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Mallah View Post
    Still not convinced TSA had a place to make this statement given that it doesn't for other such legislation passed by the gov't (or can someone provide an example) There is no part of our program or policy that relates to marriage. Linking it to our EOps policy is tenuous as that also excludes any reference to marriage.
    I tend to agree with what you say, but the EOps policy does refer to marriage -

    no person volunteering their services should
    receive less favourable treatment on the basis
    of, nor suffer disadvantage by reason of:
     marital or civil partnership status;

  4. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,440
    Thanks
    407
    Thanked 417 Times in 268 Posts
    I was just wondering about if my Explorers unilaterally decided to campaign on some controversial issue
    (to be honest unlikely, as they struggle to have an opinion on what to have for dinner)
    I would, of course, rigorously challenge their opinions, but should I stop them?

    Some examples might be:

    Experimentation on animals for medical purposes is totally acceptable.
    Fox hunting should be allowed.
    The UK should close it's borders to asylum seekers.
    .....plenty of others

  5. #50
    Senior Member recneps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Bath and Bristol
    Posts
    8,736
    Thanks
    574
    Thanked 2,208 Times in 1,420 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by khoomei View Post
    I was just wondering about if my Explorers unilaterally decided to campaign on some controversial issue
    (to be honest unlikely, as they struggle to have an opinion on what to have for dinner)
    I would, of course, rigorously challenge their opinions, but should I stop them?

    Some examples might be:

    Experimentation on animals for medical purposes is totally acceptable.
    Fox hunting should be allowed.
    The UK should close it's borders to asylum seekers.
    .....plenty of others
    I would encourage a debate amongst the group at that point and see how that goes.... its unlikely you're going to get all your explorers to agree on any of those issues.

    It is not the mountain we conquer but ourselves

  6. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,440
    Thanks
    407
    Thanked 417 Times in 268 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by recneps View Post
    I would encourage a debate amongst the group at that point and see how that goes.... its unlikely you're going to get all your explorers to agree on any of those issues.
    Possibly, but the herd instinct is also quite strong.

    If we wanted Scouting to be a campaigning organisation. Should we stick to the nice subjects, and ones dictated by HQ only?

  7. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    South Coast
    Posts
    2,326
    Thanks
    450
    Thanked 524 Times in 323 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by khoomei View Post
    Possibly, but the herd instinct is also quite strong.

    If we wanted Scouting to be a campaigning organisation. Should we stick to the nice subjects, and ones dictated by HQ only?
    Interesting thought, if the Explorers wanted to debate "Is it OK to be gay" and then decided by a majority that it wasn't...... Quite difficult for the leader. I guess we suppress that one in advance.

  8. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,440
    Thanks
    407
    Thanked 417 Times in 268 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by RisingStar View Post
    Interesting thought, if the Explorers wanted to debate "Is it OK to be gay" and then decided by a majority that it wasn't...... Quite difficult for the leader. I guess we suppress that one in advance.
    I wouldn't suppress it, but perhaps try a debate in which they must argue against their own beliefs, or give them some counter arguments to go home and think about.

    But these are some of the dangers of becoming an overtly campaigning organisation.

    If HQ tell us we are 'thrilled' about something, we might tell them we are 'disgusted' about something else.
    Last edited by khoomei; 31-03-2014 at 07:01 PM.

  9. #54
    Senior Member Walsallwizard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ingleby, Redcar And Cleveland, United Kingdom, United Kingdom
    Posts
    3,694
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 385 Times in 197 Posts
    So my first response in this thread was done at work in a few spare moments and with some consideration I will retract part of that and offer public apology, I labelled this SL a Prat and for that I humbly and sincerely apologise to him, any that know him and everyone on these forums.

    So why the retraction? Well it is very simple everyone is entitled to their opinion, it is far better to attempt to alter that opinion by reasoned argument and debate than name calling. There are many that think the legislation on Gay marriage was rushed through, there are some that think it should not have happened and there are some that welcome it.

    My personal view is that marriage is down to the church and the state, the disparity was that same sex couples could not confirm their status by contract as a couple. The only way for a mixed gender couple to confirm this was by marriage without this there were and are 2 adults living together. Same gender couples had no option available to them. Then came about civil partnerships which are only for people of the same gender.

    Now some couples would welcome the opportunity to be married in church yet they can’t, some gay couples would like that opportunity as well but this in reality is under the domain of their faith not the state. Creating legislation that allows the marriage of same gender couples whilst not amending the Civil Partnership Act to allow the civil partnerships to occur between couples of the same gender is what the outcry should be about.

    TSA already has an equal opportunities policy and through that there is and was no need for a public statement. To what end was that statement made? What was the real reason behind it? Publicity? Recruitment?

    Perhaps TSA will make a statement on the future of the Falkland Islands, Crimea etc; to TSA I say this stay out of politics, religion and concentrate on Scouting.
    Richard Fenton
    CSL 1st Hartburn Sea Scouts (Graham Mellanby's Own)
    www.hartburnseascouts.org


  10. #55
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    75
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked 10 Times in 8 Posts
    Why is it called gay marriage? I thought all marriages were gay (at least the first 25 years ....).

    Another ridiculous phrase I've heard recently is children in state care homes being referred to as 'Looked After' children. Aren't children living with their parents looked after.

  11. #56
    Senior Member recneps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Bath and Bristol
    Posts
    8,736
    Thanks
    574
    Thanked 2,208 Times in 1,420 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Walsallwizard View Post
    So my first response in this thread was done at work in a few spare moments and with some consideration I will retract part of that and offer public apology, I labelled this SL a Prat and for that I humbly and sincerely apologise to him, any that know him and everyone on these forums.

    So why the retraction? Well it is very simple everyone is entitled to their opinion, it is far better to attempt to alter that opinion by reasoned argument and debate than name calling. There are many that think the legislation on Gay marriage was rushed through, there are some that think it should not have happened and there are some that welcome it.

    My personal view is that marriage is down to the church and the state, the disparity was that same sex couples could not confirm their status by contract as a couple. The only way for a mixed gender couple to confirm this was by marriage without this there were and are 2 adults living together. Same gender couples had no option available to them. Then came about civil partnerships which are only for people of the same gender.

    Now some couples would welcome the opportunity to be married in church yet they can’t, some gay couples would like that opportunity as well but this in reality is under the domain of their faith not the state. Creating legislation that allows the marriage of same gender couples whilst not amending the Civil Partnership Act to allow the civil partnerships to occur between couples of the same gender is what the outcry should be about.

    TSA already has an equal opportunities policy and through that there is and was no need for a public statement. To what end was that statement made? What was the real reason behind it? Publicity? Recruitment?

    Perhaps TSA will make a statement on the future of the Falkland Islands, Crimea etc; to TSA I say this stay out of politics, religion and concentrate on Scouting.
    The faulkand islands and crimea are not recruiting opportunities.

    This is... and they have seized the opportunity. If it brings in an extra leader somewhere, it has done good.

    It is not the mountain we conquer but ourselves

  12. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    South Coast
    Posts
    2,326
    Thanks
    450
    Thanked 524 Times in 323 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by recneps View Post
    The faulkand islands and crimea are not recruiting opportunities.

    This is... and they have seized the opportunity. If it brings in an extra leader somewhere, it has done good.
    And if repels others it's not is it? See above - I am fairly sure in my own mind that you can be against gay marriage but still accepting of and welcoming to gay people, married or not. And... on the democracy front - did TSA consult before deciding to welcome something which is controversial, and not universally accepted on their web site.

  13. #58
    Senior Member Walsallwizard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ingleby, Redcar And Cleveland, United Kingdom, United Kingdom
    Posts
    3,694
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 385 Times in 197 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by recneps View Post
    The faulkand islands and crimea are not recruiting opportunities.

    This is... and they have seized the opportunity. If it brings in an extra leader somewhere, it has done good.
    They are Political events hence the "etc" why should TSA not make a public statement on these? The legislation of same gender marriage is not a recruiting opportunity and perhaps if TSA made a statement that they supported the Falklands remaining the way they are we might recruit some of the service men and women that have served there? Perhaps we might recruit Ukrainians or Russian ex pats?

    As I said TSA should stay out of making statements on politics
    Richard Fenton
    CSL 1st Hartburn Sea Scouts (Graham Mellanby's Own)
    www.hartburnseascouts.org


  14. #59
    Senior Member recneps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Bath and Bristol
    Posts
    8,736
    Thanks
    574
    Thanked 2,208 Times in 1,420 Posts
    Where is it written that TSA is totally apolitical? (I'm not saying that it isnt but i'd be interested to know where and what is written!)

    Guiding do well out of making political statements from time to time. They are a way of showing that we are modern, alive, and in touch with modern society and current affairs. Rather than stuffy, staid, and carrying on i nthe same old direction regardless of a changing world

    As an organisation, we should be proud of our fundamentals, and when a political situation like this aligns with our fundamentals that is the time for us to stand up.

    It is not the mountain we conquer but ourselves

  15. #60
    Senior Member Smartiepants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Rugby
    Posts
    1,228
    Thanks
    47
    Thanked 99 Times in 59 Posts
    The BSA situation has damaged us, that's a fact. We need to shed the stigma that we are not a diverse organisation, so for me, that statement was perfectly valid in reinforcing our position. I dislike the term homophobe (you're not scared, you're bigoted) but that leader, whilst entitled to their opinion, values their rights above others as indicated in the OP, regardless of whether they've been fine with a gay scout in the past or not. It's not gay marriage, it's just marriage that no longer values one couples love for each other over another's.

    I was at Pride last year and the response from the public was overwhelming, there was audible cheering for 'the scouts' as we walked past. That demonstrated to me that many realised, on that day, that we were inclusive. I was stopped by a member of the public to give the web address for how they could join, they genuinely believed that they couldn't.

    So, I think any statement that reinforces our position is a positive one, I couldn't give a rats ass if someone who opposes equal (not gay) marriage objects to it. They're the ones who need a reality check. There are too many Scouters out there who put their own views above TSA's, it's about time we stood up to them.


    Anastasia

    Deputy County Commissioner (Development) Warwickshire


  16. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Smartiepants For This Useful Post:

    ASLChris (31-03-2014),DuncanHill (01-04-2014),Ian Mallett (31-03-2014),marcush (31-03-2014)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •