ContemptMe,

Are they finally going to ban gay Boy Scout Leaders too!

They always have.

How hateful "the gays are"?? Did you just read the article? Your mind is just as warped as these idiots.

So long as they receive no taxpayer support. But in many localities, they do.

That is their right as a private organization. I don't like it, and they may be missing out on future members, but they can choose to stay in the last century if they wish.

They get some funding from the government, if I'm not mistaken. They shouldn't be allowed to discriminate if the get government funding.

Are they banning pedophiles as well? I guess no. There have been MANY instances where the boy scouts get molested by heterosexual men.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-scouts-molest-story,0,3130016.htmlstory

"...but seeing common sense lose out for once is refreshing." FTFY

Some guy, my understanding is that they receive subsidies through low or no cost usage of public resources in many cases, but don't receive direct funding. I may be wrong however.

i reserve my right to discrimminate against the boy scouts. too bad adults have to screw everything up for kids. sorry boys, not going to buy your popcorn or your holday wreaths.

With this decision if they are receiving any government support they should loose it. As a private organization they can set any rules they like but the moment they receive taxpayer money then they are not a private organization.

EngEsq, I agree with their right, but I see no problem with limiting membership to males who like females, as opposed to males or females who like males and females who like females.

The US military is training adults to fight and die for the country. The BSA is instructing young boys in self-reliance. To equate the mission and the demographics of the two organizations is short-sighted at best and disengenuous at worst.

The BSA does not include sexual distinctions in any of its myriad programs or awards. Sexual orientation is a given and receives no consideration.

That may make it old-fashioned, but does not detract from its mission.

This position has nothing to do with hate.

Hate is against BSA values.

Start another Boy and Girl Scout Club that accepts all people gay, straight, black, asian, whatever, just make sure it includes there is no hate to be taught or tolerated in brainwashing these kids.

What I find interesting about this bs case is that they have men and women both in the Boy Scouts and Girls Scouts that are pedophiles and have molested kids, and of course they will blame the gay people for that, but they really need to learn that pedophiles are 95% heterosexuals.

If there was a new Boy/Girl Scout group that accepted all people gay or straight, then watch all the people start heading to the newer clubs and distancing themselves for the current bigoted one.

What a shame..BSA misses the boat and a chance to teach tolerance along with self reliance. I agree- they are a private organization and can set their own rules, but it doesn't make their rules the right ones. They should NOT receive tax exempt status or taxpayer support, however. And to Miryam- your arguments are all religion based and we live in a SECULAR society, so biblical rules don't apply. If those are the things you believe in your church- that's your right. However, the rules that govern society at large need to be inclusive and not rely on outdated or biblical notions of what is "right"

L. J. Rhoades, what Constitutional rights are being denied to you? Is joining the BSA a constitutional right? Not according to what I've read it isn't. Is same sex marriage a constitutional right? I don't see it listed anywhere.

Whether you agree with it or not, it's a private organization that can make their own rules. If you don't like their rules, don't join. Start an organization for gays/lesbians and don't allow straight people.

Saying "We don't want you as a member" does not make any organization a "hate" group. Seriously, does everyone have to be included in everything???

And the BSA tax-exempt status comes from being a non-profit. They are still non-profit, so no reason for them to lose that status.

And no, I am not part of the BSA. Just trying to figure out why everyone is against private organizations having choices.

BTW... LOTS of private organizations (hundreds, if not thousands).. use "of America" as part of their title. It doesn't mean they represent all of the country.

First, one of the Pillars of Scouting is Duty to God, which makes it hard for athiests to uphold the Scout Oath, which includes "a Scout is Reverent". Essentially, at their core, they are a religious organization, which is why most units are chartered by churches. They make a big deal about not caring what religion you practice, so long as you keep your own faith, while in practice, they are very christian centered, at least in this country. This is the reason for banning gays, as the judeo-christian ethos sees homosexuality as a sin against God, and therefore a gay Scout or Leader cannot maintain the oath of reverence. The ban is consistent with their view of the world. However, there are several faiths that are adjusting their views of homosexuality, includeing certain christian sects, so it is good that they review their policy regularly.

Personally, I think they should leave decision on the inclusion of gays to the chartering organization. If the chartering org has no problem with it, then the national org should not either. This will allow them to align the reverence requirement with the various chartering organizations.

For those calling the BSA a hate group, you are seriously mistaken. They do not preach hate of anyone. The reverence requirement is strictly one of observing your own chosen religion, or relationship with God, or the ones of your choice (Buddhism and Hinduism are acceptible). They do have a prayer at their assemblies, sorry athiests, but I have never heard a scout our leader preach any form of hate to the group of scouts assembled. They are trying to raise these kids to be good leaders of our society with a solid moral foundation, and they stick to that philosophy. At the local troop level, most groups are actually led by the senior scouts, not by the scout leaders. The Scout Leader is there primarily to provide advice when questions arise, and to maintain the portions of the organization that most would feel beyone the skills of kids in middle school and high school -- namely keeping the books, filling out all the paperwork, dealing with campground adminstators, etc. Oh yea, each scout must go before an adult leader to prove he's learned the requirements for his rank advancement or merit badge. That's to make sure the knowledge is being passed on correctly. So essentially, Scout Leaders are primarily counselors, there to insure that things run right, and to arbitrate issues.

With today's youth (at least sub-urban youth) taking a more tollerant attitude to homosexuality, expect this policy to change, but it will take some years. If a gay kid wants to join Scouting its probably not going to be a big deal, so long as he keeps quiet about it. If he's not shouting it from the rooftops, chances are, his friends in the troop won't "out" him to the leadership either. In fact, these days, the leaders might have a mini revolt on their hands if they do try to kick him out.

To cm-bookworm, Yes we live in a secular society, but the boys scouts are not necessarily secular. They do have a Christian foundation. It is not that they are teaching non-acceptance. It is more that the secular world doesn't accept the BSA as they are. They have rules and regulations, and with this argument, it seems that the gay groups are the ones who have intolerance toward the BSA and how they do things. Why do the gays want to be part of group that doesn't accept gays? What is the attraction? Those are the questions that you should be asking. Really. Look deeper. Is it that the gay groups just don't want to start their own group, or they just want to have some type of win under their belts, or is it that they really want to be part of a christian based group, because they cannot teach their children themselves, because they are out of touch with who they really are? I mean really, it does not make sense that they would even want to be part of it.

You don't see avowed Christians being invited to join the board of GLAD (gay and lesbian advocates and defenders)

Actually, TRUE Christians would be welcomed by GLAAD. True Christians believe in things like loving your neighbor. They don't discriminate or engage in bigoted behavior.

It's the "salad-bar" variety of "christian" who causes the problems. They're the ones who pick and choose the particular bible vereses they choose to live their lives by. And they believe that the bible should somehow be used to promote hate and bigotry - something that was certainly NEVER taught when I was growing up and attending all of those church classes.

So, while the BSA certainly has the "right" to discriminate as a private group, that in no way makes this decision RIGHT. Groups shaping the youth of today, who will be tomorrow's leaders, should be teaching tolerance and understanding, not hatred and fear.

The Boy Scouts of America is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and is funded from private donations, membership dues, corporate sponsors, and special events.

In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale that Boy Scouts, and all private organizations, have the constitutionally protected right under the First Amendment of freedom of association to set membership standards.

Charity Watch rates BSA an "A".

They have every right to allow who the want and who they don't want in their organization.

All you "Rights" advocates need to step back and leave it alone. no one cares about your opinion.

I love it.

You know, if we shelter our children long enough from what they're going to run into out there - perhaps it'll be like it never existed in the first place.

Gay/lesbian folks are out there.

• Some of them served you your last burger. Did the food taste any different?
• Some take care of your elderly parents. Is the quality of care any less?
• Some take care of preparing your tax forms. Are they any worse at it than "straight" people?
• Some are in fashion design. Are they better designers than... ok, you got me there.
• You probably even work with one or two. Can you pick them out? Are they less capable at their jobs? Do they pay taxes and use services just like you?

The simple fact is, folks. Believe it or not, you can accept someone's lifestyle without personally agreeing with it. It's only the brainwashing of religion that says you have to be disagreeable to disagree.

It's probably best we teach our children to put their fingers in their ears, cover their eyes and disbelieve anything offensive. God, surely, will shelter them from what's out there, right? Because he's done so well up to this point.

God presents us with challenges to reaffirm our convictions. To believe otherwise is cowardice, pure and simple. You can't be brave without being put in a situation where bravery is required. You can't have a pure heart without being put in a position to have that purity tested.

And what if your child does come back and says... "Mom... I think I'm gay?" Will you stone your own child? Maybe if you ignore what they're telling you long enough, they'll go commit suicide so you don't have to deal with it.

I, for one, will love my sons every bit as much no matter what sexual orientation they identify with. I want them to understand what heterosexuality means... but if that's not their choice, then I stand with my kids. You see... if God's going to condemn me for loving my children no matter what - then so be it.

Interesting comments both for and against. However, let us not lose sight of the fact that the majority of people regard homosexuality as wrong and/or a perversion. Perhaps, over time, that perception will change, but until it does, the BSA is simply exercising its rights as a private organization and maintaining the status quo.

Those that don’t approve of the beliefs of the BSA shouldn’t join or allow their children to join. However, it seems to be more fashionable for some to attack the group rather than just letting them alone. Either they will comply or be destroyed, is that it?

This is NOT "hate".

All too often, when there is a disagreement, someone calls someone a "hater"; the reasons for this are simple - you label someone a "hater" in hopes that others will refuse to hear the MESSAGE, because the MESSENGER is "bad", i.e, "hates". An old tried and true tactic.

WHERE has the BSA taught hatred ? Do they, in den meetings, preach hatred ? Is there a merit badge for gay bashing ?

MOST religions, (which comprise 80% of the world's population who choose a religion, teach that homosexuality is wrong - Now, whether or not YOU, personally believe it is wrong, has no bearing on 5 billion ppl who DO think it wrong. As a private organization, they have the right to set policy - you dont like it ? Fight it - that's your right...or, start another organization. What right do YOU have to change policies in an existing organization that those belonging To that organization WANT ?

I truly believe that gay males are not more inclined to molest underage boys; however, in a close proximity situation where adult males and juvenile males, are camping, sleeping in close quarters, showering, you are necessarily opening a pandora's box which would otherwise not be present. IF an incident happened, the BSA would surely be sued for "allowing" gasoline and match to come into close proximity.

Even those (many) of you who dislike the policy would NEVER condone grown MALE scout leaders taking charge of young girls. SURE, in THIS forum, you'll "play" political correctness - but when it comes to YOUR daughters, in reality, you wouldn't BE so....liberal.

This is not hate. It is prudence; it is a difference of opinion. Sometimes, reasonable minds can differ without hate being present.

America is changing, and it's changing for the worse. When I attended college 40+ years ago, my Psychology textbook classified homosexuality as "deviant" behavior, but 40+ years later, it is being taught as "normal" behavior. If you ask people why such changes are occurring, they simply say that humankind has become more liberal, tolerant, and enlightened, while others refer to the changes as immoral, ignorant, and dishonest.

Well, let's look at the facts. 40+ years ago, the U.S. ranked as one of the most educated and intelligent countries in the world, pornography was villified and banned, we had a balanced budget, taxes were pretty low, and most people worked for a living. Today, we are ranked far down the list educationally behind many countries that most U.S. students never heard of, and most of those same students don't even think a college education is worth the cost. We now have a national debt of over $15 trillion and growing, and most of our manufacturing base has been shipped overseas, so people can't even find jobs. Instead of working for a living, people are more concerned with government taking care of their every need.

It often amazes me to hear people say it is their right to believe whatever they want and do whatever is in their best interest. If you look at the biological facts, if most families consisted of gay parents, and most lovers consisted of gay couples, we as a species would soon become extinct. If anyone considers a homosexual to be less of a human being than anyone else, then they need to understand that we need to educate ourselves with facts, because all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, but we shouldn't attempt to justify our sins by demeaning ourselves or others. If anyone needs further clarification, I would strongly recommend reading the oldest book known to mankind, so at least you would educate yourself as to how all things began and how things were expected to be managed in the beginning, in the present, and what the future holds for us as a species. If you do, I think you will find that things don't look very promising.

Wow I all the hate I see here is not coming from the BSA. The BSA chooses not to change. This is not news. I'm sorry but if you don't like don't join. Don't support them . It's not mandatory. Why do we all have to bow to the beliefs of others? Oh thats right we don't this is America. I don't personally care what you do in your private life. Don't want to know unless we are related and then don't want to know what you prefer sexually. Nope, none of my business. Yes I believe sex should be between a man and I woman. I can choose to believe that it's ok. No one can make me feel bad. Nope, it's what I believe. Virgin when I got married. Till death do us part. My choice. STOP THE HATE.

L.J. Rhodes: "Epoch, it amazes me how you people keep claiming we're the intolerant ones, when it's y'all who keep using your so-called beliefs as an excuse to deny us our constitutional rights. We're not denying you your constitutional rights. We're simply refusing to allow you to deny us ours. When you bully us, then you call us bullies for standing up to you, you lose all credibility. In fact, you look absolutely foolish."

But you are denying my Constitutional Rights. As an employer, I have to hire people based on things other than performance or I open myself up to lawsuits. If I had my way, I would have only white men working for me (Generally speaking, it leads to considerably less drama). So how is it not violating my rights to force me to hire less capable people simply because they know how to whine to the government.

Check with Sandusky about that showering with kids. When the BSA admits openly gay members, then my contributions stop. What next, should a prostate support group admit women? This country had gone nuts. Should the Black Caucus admit white people?

Difference of opinion is not hate, discrimination, which is what the Boy Scouts are doing, is hate

The pro-gay respondents all throw the word "HATE," around, and just because someone isn't allowed to join a club, doesn't mean they hate anyone. Disassociation is not hate, join a club you're accepted into. What you're asking, is similar to a draft dodger wanting to join a veterans organization. You're proud to advertise your sexuality, and then complain when there are consequences. How about our right to associate with whomever we choose?

They are a private group and can do as they please. No one is forced to join. When the NAACP and United Negro College Fund accept white and other races, then come and talk about the Boy Scouts. That will be the day after never. I personally would love to see a world where none of this matters and everyone is equal, but no one is going to come together until one side has declared "victory." By then, we will all be dead.

Just out of curiosity, I spend everyday of my life trying to improve the lives of my children. I ask, sincerely, where do people get time to fight orgs like the Boy Scouts or whoever is the target of the day? I really wonder this as providing for my little ones consumes every facet of my life. I could sure use the insight. Thank you.

When the NAACP and United Negro College Fund accept white and other races, then come and talk about the Boy Scouts.

Ouch! I'm on the other side of this argument but, that is one damn good point!

Private organization that accepts public money to operate as well as being given priority status when it comes to reservations of various national parks.

Much of the public funds have been revoked over the years but they need to be 100% revoked and their special privileges revoked as well.

At that point I'd then give them a pass as a 'private' organization that can exclude whoever they want.

So, we should make sure the BSA gets no federal funds because a very small minority of the total population doesn't like their perfectly legal membership policy? When will gays realize that no matter how hard they try to shove their agenda down our throats, we aren't going to swallow it.

@Dom, as I said, sadly I will no longer support this organization or it fund raising.

Obviously, you care about my statement or you wouldn't have responded.

It sounds like you have an issue with people being gay, perhaps someday you'll rise above that.

*Shrugs shoulders*

And the world turns. Human beings will be human beings.

It's archaic, it's outdated, but it's the boy scouts, not the national government, so I'm not that put off.

"When the NAACP and United Negro College Fund accept white and other races, then come and talk about the Boy Scouts."

THEY DO accept EVERYONE. Want to join the NAACP as a white person, just sign up! There is NO racial discrimination.

You want us straight people to tolerate gays/lesbians but you same people don't tolerate stuff us heterosexuals do you, gays/lesbians are hypocrites. You people don't like to be called *ags or *ykes but it's all well and fine to call us breeders or what ever else that suits you.

I fully support what the BSA did they got every right in the world to ban these types of people I'm going to go write a 5 grand check to them with a letter telling them how much it's a joy that they kept there policy upheld and not let these types in the BSA. Now to get out the gays that molest our kids then this will be the best org. in the world.

"When will gays realize that no matter how hard they try to shove their agenda down our throats, we aren't going to swallow it."

This is exactly what they said about Blacks, Jews, Italians, Irish, Women, etc. ...and yet, as the land of equality, America eventually gets it right.

This whole argument is ridiculous. If you want to start your own Gay Scouts of America organization - feel free and stop your whining. Is it OK if I bitch about not being able to get a scholarship from the United Negro College Fund as a white guy?

"Check with Sandusky about that showering with kids. When the BSA admits openly gay members, then my contributions stop."

Um...Sandusky is straight and married...

"This whole argument is ridiculous. If you want to start your own Gay Scouts of America organization - feel free and stop your whining. Is it OK if I bitch about not being able to get a scholarship from the United Negro College Fund as a white guy?"

Let me guess, you cry out against the Miss Black America Pageants, right?

What does United Negro College Fund have to do with anything? It was created because there were few opportunities for African Americans. Whites already get all the funding.

The scouts are not a private organization in the strictest sense. The receive government funds from various sources. There are grants, as well as the use of government facilities for meetings, camps, etc.. If they choose this discriminatory policy, then they need to lose all of these government perks. They also have a Congressional charter. That needs to be revoked. At that point, they will be truly private, and can discriminate all they want. They should be held to the same standards as any other private organization that receives taxpayer funding.

The BSA gets $1 million from HUD, a federal agency. That must be revoked for discrimination.

Afgter reading this hate filled crap from most above, I would want my kid to be in the BSA to protect them from all of YOU.

Thank God I chose not to have kids. Dealing with 'adults' in todays world is hard enough.

Bart Conner

"When the NAACP and United Negro College Fund accept white and other races, then come and talk about the Boy Scouts."

THEY DO accept EVERYONE. Want to join the NAACP as a white person, just sign up! There is NO racial discrimination.

How about the Congressional Black Caucus?

"The scouts are not a private organization in the strictest sense. The receive government funds from various sources. There are grants, as well as the use of government facilities for meetings, camps, etc.. If they choose this discriminatory policy, then they need to lose all of these government perks. They also have a Congressional charter. That needs to be revoked. At that point, they will be truly private, and can discriminate all they want. They should be held to the same standards as any other private organization that receives taxpayer funding."

Like say for instance "Planned Parenthood"

JimSpence is at the computer again. Call staff. Time for chemical restraints.

Bart are you out of the eighth grade yet? The point is these organizations originated to include a certain group of people with their own mission statement, whether its UNCF or Black Miss America or the Kiwanas club. Why do you think it's your right to force your agenda into something that already exists, is counterintuitive to their mission or beliefs and then scream hate and intolerance when you don't get your crybaby way? MYOB and start your own org.

Good job BSA.

Stay strong in your core beliefs.

Thank God for the BSA

Typical Liberal Mentality Towards any Service/Religious Organization:

They serve others. They donate money to the needy. They promote the country. They teach we should respect and serve the United States and what it stands for. They teach that we should honor God (who's that?). They teach that we should be law-binding citizens. They educate kids and adults to become better. They teach things that will help them in the workplace. They inspire them to pursue an education. But...

They are not on board with the GLBT ">" power pursuit... So, despite everything else... They are a HATE GROUP! I will not support them! Even if they are a positive influence!

While I would like to see the scouts join us in this century and be more proactive I can also say I'm not to surprised by this. Mainly because there are many organizations that support the BSA and would have likely stopped if they reversed their stance. Which is my question, had they reversed their stance who would fill that vacuum? Is there a gay group out there that is going to help out or is it move onto the next group leaving the BSA a pile of burning wreckage? Like I said I would be fine and wish they would change their stance, they do have a charter and they get public funds so they need to be held to a higher standard, but I also don't want the BSA committing suicide at the same time. This will change in time and the public is getting there, but bullying organizations like the BSA is not the answer. This is the one flaw of the gay rights movement. Going after groups like this instead of focusing on laws that that are still in place that really take away their rights. Two guys or gals want to get married, fine by me I support that i think that law should change, but don't bully others. The scouts don't openly preach hate against gays. Sexual orientation and worrying about it is far from what goes on at scout meetings ect. Those calling the scouts a hate group need to get a clue; have you ever even been to a scout function? There is no one standing up front preaching against gays. The scouts do great things for kids and communities, again the main point, and we need to help make sure that is still happening. Believe me other than the media hype this really isn't a big deal as far as the everyday scouting activities go. This is more of a national level issue and most of the troops are rather autonomous on most things so don't get this misconstrued. It may not be the right decision but it does make sure the scouts can keep going and like I said there will be a day, not to long from now my guess, where this will change. So please respect it and get back the national issues at hand, solve those and many smaller issues will solve themselves.

It is time

" ... Intolerance is indeed a two way street! ... "

Yes you are correct. With one little exception. My intolerance is of the intolerant.

I am not intolerant because someone is black, brown or white. My intolerance is not because you are gay. Nor is it because someone worships in a way different way then I do.

I am intolerant of people who are. I am intolerant of hate. Of fear. Of arrogance from those who have no right to be. Of people who use their faith as a weapon against other not of their faith. Who use their Bible to justify their ignorance, fear and hate.

I am not intolerant of you just because you are different then I am. I am intolerant of you, and people like you because of YOUR intolerance. Because of YOUR fear. Because of YOUR hate.

And as for "politically correct"? Here's politically correct for you ....

@!$%# you, you intolerant @!$%#!

I have tried intelligent, adult, rational discourse. But my wife tells me that I can not fight with the Right in America any more.

That it's not fair to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

I encourage all the BSA defenders (especially those who keep taking issue with the gay community's simply standing up to Christian bullying and keep calling us bullies for doing so) to do a Google image search for the string "quit squirming you're oppressing our religious freedom." I've yet to see a more to-the-point illustration of exactly how you're all acting and how you look to the rest of the world.

Hey George, glad to see you want tolerance. Mind if I have time with your wife? No? What??? You intolerant icehole. You are so hateful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are such a hater!!!!!!!!!!!!! You only use hate speech!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You hate everyone!!!!!!!!!!!! Look how hatefull you are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gosh, what would liberals do without exclamation points??? What would they do if they finally understood how out of the mainstream they really are?

I dont want gays "guiding" my sons. I dont want pedophiles "guiding" my sons. I dont want bank robbers "guiding" my sons. Oh please, tell me how gays are soooooooooooooooooooo different from the others I mention. No, they are not. All of it is evil and is sin.

How much poison do you want in your drink? As for me? I want none.

Old Sarge-3447849

JimSpence is at the computer again. Call staff. Time for chemical restraints.

LOL,,,the chemicals stopped working years ago, you'll need mechanical restraints to keep me from these wonderfully delusional, inaccurate and confabulated Liberal sites.

Thanks for noticing though ;)

The Boy Scouts were once a patriotic, American group.

Now they've been taken over by people who want to put a cross on the flag.

What they don't realize, is what they should be trying to put on the flag is a crescant moon.

Because Boy Scouts are more Muslim fundamentalist than Christian or American.

Muslim Scounts, in fact, is probably a better description.

Here's what it comes down to...sure as a private organization they are free to set their own rules and restrictions. However, as a private organization that enjoys that freedom, they cannot apply for nor receive a dime of federal funding. Can't have it both ways.

Additionally, it is my right and freedom to discontinue support of the Scouts. As an Eagle, and with a gay brother who is also an Eagle, it saddens me that is has come to this. However, money talks, and mine will be saying "goodbye" until BSA catches up with the times.

And to all of those who think homosexual = pedophile, if you believe gay men prey on young boys then it only makes logical sense that straight men prey on young girls. You should all sign the petition to BAN all straight men from being Girl Scout Leaders IMMEDIATELY!

To the pro gay BSAérs, get a life.

The BSA has had this in their charter from day one, now that some states are OK with gay marriage and all does not mean all the world needs to follow suit and accept someone else's new ideals.

Way to go BSA

Stand your ground.

A lot of the comments on here are a total joke.

Just because the Boy Scouts want to prohibit gays from joining DOES NOT mean they hate gays. Its just no part of their culture. If they let them in, many of their current members would quit the Boy Scouts.

Here is my suggestion. Start your own boys organization for gay boys. Call it Gay Boys of America, or, perhaps Fruit Loops of America. ;-) Take your pick. You can do many of the same things the Boy Scouts do, camping, hiking, crafts, social projects, etc.

Homosexuality Caused By Emotional Trauma as Early as 4 Years Old: Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA 2009): "One half of the victims...often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences...The age at the time of the molestation ranged from 4 to 16 with a mean age of 10."

Ex-Gay Says Homosexuality Caused By His Emotional Trauma Starting at Age 6:
Author and AIDS victim Jerry Arterburn said: "I was involved in the homosexual world as a blatant attempt to obtain the affection from other men that I did not receive from my own father." (from his autobiography "How Will I Tell My Mother?")
Due to his sensitive nature, he was more deeply affected than most boys when his own father rejected him early in life. Without a loving father figure, he yearned for affection from other boys by the age of six. His yearning became sexualized at puberty. He said being abused or severely neglected in childhood was "too common a thread to ignore" in the gay community and his female mannerisms were due to his mother, his only role model. He was NOT born gay.

George from Wa. State

@!$%# you, you intolerant @!$%#!

George, nothing pleases us from the Right, as you like to call us, more than to watch another insignificant little Liberal brain exploding.

However, we will still pray for you.

The "hate" references utilized in personal and group attacks were totally predictable and as in most of the cases, way off base.

It's a worn out tactic. Hopefully that realization will dawn upon you eventually so we can begin to communicate. Disagreement is not tantamount to hate. You see , tolerance is not a one-sided coin, everyone must participate and exercise it.

You will have very very little success applying the label "hater" to those you are seeking to bring over to your own way of seeing things. It's no different than a person of faith quoting scripture to an atheist.

You're not going to shame others into adopting your perspective.

The Boy Scouts are not out with picket signs demonizing the LGBT community, they simply want to keep their group based upon their own views. It's a private group and it's their private business. In reality it is no different that the whole homosexual behavior situation. What anyone does in the privacy of their own bedroom is no one's business. We have the right to have PRIVATE groups in this country.Another aspect of this situation is this :

If you force them to change their rules, then it also raises the questions: Once you have changed the line in the sand, just how far shall it be moved and WHO decides how far? YOU?

What gives you the right to decide what others should believe or how they should feel? or who they should be forced to accept in their private groups?

Should girls now be allowed in the boy scouts as well, ....or for that matter, adults....?

Should grown men be allowed to join? ... after all if it's not fair to discriminate based upon sexual preference, then logically, it would not be fair to do so based upon age....

So according to your logic, if we do not allow a 90 year old woman to join, the Boy Scouts, it is also hateful.

And what about a grown man joining the girl scouts?

In the world according to you, no one has the right to deny any man the opportunity to live the innocence and femininity that was suppressed in his childhood? Following your own logic, a 55 year old man should be totally free to join the girl scouts....and if not, it is all because of HATE...?

If you open this door, then what gives you the right to then decide how far it should be swung open...?

TOLERANCE means exactly that.... "putting up" with those who hold different views, tolerance includes a level of acceptance, but does not mean EMBRACING others.

You imagine a utopia where there is total freedom, with no barriers to anything..... This however, is an impossibility, for somewhere, at some point, one's freedom impinges upon that of another.

Your attempt to force your own views upon private groups is in reality, no different than their wish to exclude you. Leave them be, in the freedom to choose their own company. Practice the same right yourselves by starting your own organization with no barriers to anyone.

Let go of the judgement, release the negativity that is festering inside of you. That which motivates yo to engage in name calling, vile insults, stereotyping and intolerance.

Recognize that it is natural for some people to be repulsed by homosexual behavior and they will never want to associate with you. That's their loss, it's also their right, still that doesn't necessarily qualify as hate...

Even in the case of those who do actually hate you for who and or what you are, if you become a reflection of that sentient, all is lost.

Not everyone who does not want to associate with you hates you.

Please do let go of that, so some communication can actually happen.

God Bless You

I agree with the Boy Scouts. In Denver there is a 7 year old boy who wants to join the Girl Scouts. Would any of you, as a parent to a daughter, want this? My boys are grown but each of them were Weblows, Cub and Boy Scouts in the 80's. If the Scouts adopt a president of allow gays and lesbians to join, they would have to allow transbenders, hemaphrodites and any other others. I am not against gays and lesbians, my youngest son is gay and lives with a life partner, but that was his choice and his own decision. I say to each his/her own, but this type of lifestyle is their choice and should not be influenced or pressured by others in their groups, troups or packs!

Derek you are using the name of Muslim as an insult. This is offensive and we can't tolerate that , you are a hypocrite Islamophobic intolerant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't help but shake my head and smile disappointedly as I read all the comments justifying discrimination against gays in which the posters say that discriminating against them doesn't equate to hating them, and that it's okay to engage in such discrimination, because it's based on culture, tradition or even religious belief. Yet, these are all the exact same arguments that were used to defend slavery and the denial of equal rights to women, blacks and other minorities throughout the decades and even centuries.

These arguments have failed every time they've been used, yet bigots keep using them. What's the word that describes people who keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results? Yup. I think that pretty much sums them up. As such, perhaps they should have their right to vote taken away, since they obviously can't make informed, well-reasoned decisions.

One reason I do not go to Church anymore (The other being that the Church has become a wing of the Republican't Obstructionist Party) is the Church constantly teaches and preaches HATE.

You should see how they are cheering this decision. They say its a mortal blow to those who want Gay Rights.

I am hopeful that one day people in the Church will say enough, and begin voting out the Conservative leadership that brings in this hatred doctrine.

Its also nice to see all the Scout Leaders on here today artifically jacking up the votes for the Scouts.

And all of this is my opinion only.

Derek, dude, you are so wrong on the muslim issue. Bigotry gets you nowhere!

@Gwen

has basic christian values and teaches the boys to be honest and good men who will grow up and be responsible men, with values that teach men to be men, not men to be women or assume they are something other than themselves

You're one of the problems with this country, assuming that gay parents hold no basic christian values. Christian derives from Christ as in Jesus Christ who never commented on sexual orientation for or against. Judge not... But your sect of Christianity apparently picks and chooses what to believe.

I'll wave to you from the other side of the locked pearly gates as you get an express elevator to the hot place you apparently condemn others.

The Boy Scouts of America turned my life around as a child, and turned me into a fairly mature young man. I have used many of the skills I learned there in countless situations including saving the life of someone hemorrhaging from a major circular wound to a mans forearm.

There is no other organization that does as much good for America than this fine organization in my opinion. Anal, and oral homosexual sex have nothing good that can possibly be contributed.

All this talk of hate is ridiculous. What a childish arguement! The Boy Scouts have made the decision to make homosexuality a non-issue in their ranks. How? By not allowing homosexual leaders, the kids can spend their time actually learning about the things they are SUPPOSED to be learning about-leadership, etc- instead of being forced into learning about sexual orientation. THe leaders are reserving the PARENTS the right to explain these things in their own homes....how is that hateful in the least? Ridiculous.

Not every organization will please every person. That's why there are so many churches..... If you feel the BSA is wrong then you have a CHOICE. You can whine, protest and/or sue OR you can set up your own organization for children, that does NOT discriminate.

First off let me say I was a scout as a youth, I enjoyed it, and I don't agree with their decision. I do however fully support their right to make that decision for themselves. I have and would do so again serve my country to defends any Americans rights.

Secondly, this was not part of any "gay Agenda or movement". This was an internal issue the leadership of the BSA had been discussing, there was no outside force demanding they change, other then our own society and culture. No one was demanding they change or else. There was a lesbian who was acting as a scout leader that was forced out and asked for the policy to be reviewed, and an Eagle Scout asking for it to be changed. Have there been issues in the past yes, this was not one of them.

And woodshed, while I am glad that the scouts turned your life around, you seem to have forgotten to be respectful. All people have worth and value, whether they see it themselves or not. To decide that an entire subset or humanity is worthless betrays your initial statement

The point isn't that they discriminate. The KKK discriminates and doesn't allow gays or blacks to be members, and no one's lamenting that policy. What's crap is that the BSA are given free use of public facilities, and these facilities are funded at the expense of taxpayers. If the KKK were given tax dollars to fund their operations, would you also say we're wrong to protest their policies of exclusion? And, yes, it is the exact same principle.

I am the mother of a son. He's 4 years old now and in a couple of years he'll be old enough to join cub scouts.

I don't have a problem with gays, I'm pro gay rights, I love gay people, I have gay friends...

However, I want to have control over how my son is introduced to sexual topics. I don't believe that a 5 or 6 year old needs to have sexuality pushed on them at that age. All they know about relationships at that age is that their parents love each other and love them too. If I thought that the gay scoutmasters had no agenda other than to simply run a troop meeting like any other den mom or dad I'd have no issue at all with it. And I honestly believe that most have only that intention at heart.

But the fact that this has been such a controversy tells me that there are those in the gay community who have decided to make this an issue. If they weren't flaunting their sexuality around kids I don't think it would be an issue, because then who would complain? Or maybe I'm naive and these are all plain Jane run of the mill scouting folk who just happen to be gay but never told anyone and the community found out and lynch mobbed them.... I don't know...

I guess I'm just feeling like as an adult it can be confusing enough dealing with complex social issues and I'm loath to expose my child to it. I want to teach him that I'll accept him no matter what, if he's gay I'll totally love and cherish him and his partner. But I don't want to teach him to BE GAY... I mean, who as a kid didn't come home one day and tell mom and dad that they wanted to marrie their best same sex friend... I know I did. My mom said that's nice that you love her but girls marry boys... or something to that effect. I don't know how I feel about saying "that's great! you can marry little Johnny if you want" or worse what if he kisses his make friend and then I have an angry hetero father acting like my son is sexually assaulting his son when they are just acting out what they saw at a cubscout meeting!

Anyway, I know that some of it is left over homnophobia from my upbringing. It's darn hard to not raise your kid the way you were raised and, lets face it, our parents didn't have to deal with these issues. So while I don't like to admit it, if my local cubscout pack had an openly gay leader, I don't think I'd sign my son up. And I think that is a very common, albeit shameful and secret, feeling of most parents who have kids involved in scouting. They just don't want this battle being fought in front of their kids.

Exactly lola007

The scouts teach leadership and accountability, and self reliance, none of which the left feels is useful anymore, since it is the governments job to give them everything, because they are "entitled".

LJ Rhodes. Did you bump your head once or twice? You sound like you did, or maybe an old man with a lot of hate yourself. If Dunkin Donuts didn't have your chocolate nut donut, they would be discriminating against your choice for one.

I doubt that even GAY people would want a gay scoutmaster with their child on a camp out.

Miryam Gonzales de Reynolds said:

Not so many years ago, people realized that homosexuality is a sin. I remember when it was a shameful thing and no one wanted to be gay. I also remember when having a child out of wedlock was a shameful thing- now that doesn't phase anyone simply because it happens all the time. Just because it has become widely "acceptable" in an ever-changing society, does not mean it is no longer sinful.

Being homosexual used to not be considered a 'sin'. The Greco-Romans, numerous ancient civilizations all had homosexuality and incest--Cleopatra herself was married to two of her own brothers, and homosexuality was referred to in many classical writings of the time.

The behavior hasn't changed, what has changed is our society's view of it. And our society's view of it has been shaped by the religious belief and mores of the ruling majority. YOU consider it 'sinful'; practitioners of my belief system consider it 'normal'. Persons who favor their same gender have been around since the dawn of civilization and will continue to be around as long as humans exist, so even if you call it a sin, you will never get rid of it.

Please remember that lying, fornication (sexual immorality of any kind), cheating, stealing, bribery, murder, etc. are all still sins. These just have not yet become (and I hope they never do!) socially "acceptable."

Er. Let's address that.

'Lying'. yes, it is socially acceptable in certain situations--'Honey does this dress make me look fat?' 'Of course not, dear, let's go, dinner reservations are waiting.' And there was a recent case where a guy who was running for some public office claimed he'd served in the military and won medals when in fact he did not. When it was found out, his 'lying' was covered under free speech, but he had to accept the consequences of lying--being fired. Look up 'Stolen Valor Act'.

Fornication. Yes, that too is acceptable. Look at Playboy. Maxim. GQ. Playgirl. If it wasn't James Bond wouldn't be as popular as he is today! There's a definite double standard here--I have known plenty of Christians going on about fornication, yet there's not a single one of them will turn down a good steamy kiss in a James Bond film! And while were at it, how come movies like 'Brokeback Mountain' with gay guys is vilified, castigated and made fun of when two girls making out (i.e Mila Kunis and Natalie Portman in Black Swan') is a hit at the box office?

Cheating: Two words; banks and corporations. They cheat people out of millions. Spygate: NFL coach cheats, gets fined, but still gets to keep his job. What kind of message does that send? It's frowned on, but it is acceptable.

Stealing: refer to above on banks and corporations.

Bribery: Yes it is acceptable. Look at this example; Homeland Security asks Congress for $141 per person per night ($51,000 per year) for each immigrant detained a private prison will hold the detainee for $98 a night ($35,000 a year). Homeland Security keeps the extra $15,000 and the private prison will take that $35k and cut corners with the detainees in order to pour money into lobbyists, who wine and dine and treat Congressmen and Senators to lavish breakfast, lunch and dinner 'meetings' in exchange for them listening (and ultimately pushing through) more restrictive legislation designed to keep the detainee population going, legislation like the NDAA for FY2012 (indefinite detention without charge or trial of any non-citizen suspected of terrorism) and the upcoming Enemy Expatriation Act (allowing the government to strip citizenship from anyone suspected of--not proven, no trial needed--terrorism). Yes, Bribery is accepted and practiced.

Murder: If it is not acceptable why do we have the death penalty?

So we are not intolerant solely towards "gays and lesbians," we are intolerant- as we should be- of all sins.

Speak for yourself. My belief system has sets for the lesbians (Dianics) and Gays (the Minoan Brotherhood.) We believe that all acts of love and pleasure, so long as they are consensual and hurt no one, are the Goddess's gifts and it frustrates us that our supposedly secular government discriminates against our religion by refusing to recognize our Dianics and Minoans as 'married'.

And you are not intolerant of 'all sins'--a lot of the things proscribed in the Bible as 'sins' no longer apply--eating shellfish, clothes made of two different fibers--and a lot of things in your Bible that were not sins would be a sin now--selling your daughter into slavery comes to mind.

"I don't believe that a 5 or 6 year old needs to have sexuality pushed on them at that age."

And no one is suggesting they should. Heterosexual scoutmasters don't talk about sex with 6 year olds, and homosexual ones would follow all of the same standards. Obviously.

Like virtually everyone else here, I, too, support the right of the BSA - as a private organization - to discriminate against anyone it wants, be they gay, straight, catholic, jewish, protestant, muslim, orthodox, atheist, black, white, brown, red, yellow, etc. In no way should the government use its authority to force it to allow members to which it is bigoted against. I would stand in support of the BSA, and any other private organization, if that were to happen.

That being, said, because the BSA has decided to retain an archaic prejudiced policy based upon hatred, the time has come for all other private individuals and organizations to take a stance against it. Since the BSA possesses an encoded policy of discrimination, we must insist that all taxpayer-funded subsidies, from the federal government on down, totally cease. We must lobby to disallow the BSA to use any public accommodation, including public schools. The BSA should no longer be permitted to have troops that are sponsored or recognized in public schools. If the BSA wants a school base, there are plenty of private, primarily religious, education institutions that can sponsor, recognize or support them. If schools are lacking, troops can utilize private homes or private business property that supports their prejudiced-laced activities. And to that end, we should inform any corporation, company or business that sponsors the BSA in any form to cease and desist or face an economic boycott. It's our right, as private citizens, to do so. (Those who insist that private businesses should continue to sponsor the BSA or face an economic boycott have the same and equal right to do so.)

What's sad is that it is the children of the BSA who are going to be hurt by the continuance of the organization's official bigotry. The children don't care what anyone is - all they want to do is go camping and have fun. It's the ignorant, hate-filled, bigotted, prejudiced adults who run the BSA who are responsible.

And, yes, what the BSA is doing is hate.

If the Scounts are allowed to keep their federal funding then Gay and Lesbian couples should get a tax break since their tax dollars are going to that organization. Why should a family that's not permitted to use a service be required to pay for that service. As far as boys being pulled into the woods a raped, it's already happened more than one and the attacker has always been a married man with a family.

I support the decision. Honestly I'm so tired of all this gay rights, gay equality, gay this and that being shoved down my throat lately! I never HAD a problem with gays until recently. Live your lives and stop trying to make everyone accept your lifestyle every 5 minutes! It's going to take some time for certain people to see your relationships the same as they see their own. Doesn't mean it won't happen, it just might, but you get more bees with honey than vinegar.

Accept it and move on.

Xina,

So far nearly every case of an ousted scout leader has occurred when their sexuality was discovered by sources outside the troop. It has never been and never will be an issue of someone teaching your child to be gay, any more then a straight leader kissing their spouse teaches them to be straight.

My bigger issue is that but deciding to exclude all homosexuals they are excluding, by their bias, children of same sex parents and children who may be questioning their own sexuality.

And instead of reacting like your mother did, how about a "that's nice dear, but you have to be a grown up to get married"

Yeah look how long it took interracial couples the right to get married.

I'm all for gay rights, but this is a private organization. It is possible to disagree with someone but respect their rights.

But as for the bigotry being spewed on here, I have one question for you people so vehemently opposed to the LGBT community: How does it feel knowing you cannot win? EVERY poll indicates that homophobia is considerably lower in the younger generation and considerably higher in the seniors. Look at how racism is treated today; yeah there are still people that view black people as inferior, but we all know they're racists and they are treated as nobodies. That is exactly how homophobia will be treated when this generation dies off.

I had my first homosexual experience while in the Boy Scouts with Scout Master Timmy.

I guess they aren't doing the job too well :(

This is not a matter of hating the sinner(which it isn't), it is all about hating the sin(which it is). Those who find themselves smack-dab in the middle of the consequences of their choices are angry and are lashing out at everyone but themselves. No one else made the choice for them, they made the choices themselves but are unwilling to accept those consequences. So, it's par for the course and what we have come to expect from gays.

There have been MANY instances where the boy scouts get molested by heterosexual men.

How can a guy be heterosexual if he's having sex with a male? That was a STUPID statement!!!! Wouldn't that make him a GAY Pedaphile?????? WTF Man!

Cover yourself your ignorance is showing. Pedophilia has nothing to do with the sex of the children. It has to do with power just like rape.

I have really enjoyed all of the gaybashing rednecks comments. You guys just don't get it. Noone is shoving anything down your throught they are just trying to be treated as equals.

Ahh the religious zealots. Please keep your bible where it belongs, in the fiction section of the library. Jesus was just a good man that got tired of seeing the poor trampled by the rich and the Clergy. Sound Familiar. Noahs Ark -- Really? Good grief I cannot believe that so many adults still cling to this BS.

Judging splits the mind and creates apartheid. Welcome to an apartheid organization. Wasn't this type of ideology which created hitler and the nazis? Wasn't this type of ideology which gave us the back of the bus? Exactly what our children need. Hate! Never will BSA come near my family. Respect life in all of its forms. All human beings deserve equal treatment. Anything else is elitism, separatist, and smacks of hatred.

my IQ has fallen over 30 points from reading the comments on this thread. this country, NAY, THIS WORLD, is screwed.

The_Messenger

This is not a matter of hating the sinner(which it isn't), it is all about hating the sin(which it is). Those who find themselves smack-dab in the middle of the consequences of their choices are angry and are lashing out at everyone but themselves. No one else made the choice for them, they made the choices themselves but are unwilling to accept those consequences. So, it's par for the course and what we have come to expect from gays.

Here in America, we all have rights. And if you want to take away someone's rights, you have to have a pretty damn good reason (either evidence that they have committed a crime, or evidence that they are medically unable to take care of themselves/similar medical situations). You CANNOT take away someone's rights just cause.

So what proof do you have? What justifiable reason do you have to take away the rights of the LGBT community?

You don't, do you. You go by your beliefs, your morals. So you make someone else's life worse because you believe. There is no proof there is an afterlife. There is no proof there is a God. There is no proof that LGBTs should be treated any different. All there is to justify those beliefs is a book of fairytales written 2000 years ago by men with highly questionable morals. But you want to ruin their only guaranteed life because of your beliefs. Not proof. Beliefs.

Sorry, this is America. You need something a little more concrete than belief to take away someone's rights. There is no logical justification for taking away someone's rights in the here and now because some people believe in an afterlife.

I just don't understand why. Why do you treat them like @!$%#? Isn't that supposed afterlife in hell going to be bad enough? Spending an eternity in eternal fire isn't punishment enough? Or are you worried that they'll convince the children to become homosexual? Tell me, when did you decide to be heterosexual? Are you telling me that someone could have convinced you to become attracted to someone the same sex as you? And who the hell would choose to be homosexual? With the way they are treated today, no one in their right mind would choose to be homosexual. I'd love to hear a logical explanation for why homophobia exists, but I'm willing to bet all the money in the world no one will be able to come up with one.

And to anyone else complaining about the homosexual "flaunting their sexuality" or "forcing it on you", I see it the exact opposite way. YOU'RE the ones that are forcing things upon homosexuals. If you just gave them the same rights as heterosexuals, they would leave you alone. Trust me, homosexuals want nothing to do with homophobes. Just give them their civil rights and they'll leave you alone.

Homosexuality is practiced in over 1500 species. Homophobia is practiced in only 1. You tell me which one is unnatural.

I was a cub scout, then a boy scout way back when a tattoo was a sign of rebellion. I never thought about gays good or bad, until much later. I was raised in an all white town of 2500, in an almost all white state in the pacific northwest. Remember that song in "South Pacific", "you must be carefully taught", this is how you start to be carefully taught, there is all of us together, and then there is them, the others, them not like us. Fear them, stay away from them, and after awhile, hate them. Yes, we are carefully taught. This song was about racial prejudice between whites and south pacific islanders. Any them will do and long as they are different from us. The BSA are starting this careful teaching by banning a group that has been made different, not through choice of their own, God made them different.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with Muslim Scouts of America.

Only people who don't like to be called Muslims would have that problem.

I'm just saying that the Boy Scouts of America are more Muslim in agenda than anything else. You know, in other words, it is a religious organization and not one that is in line with being a Christian.

That's not bigoted. That's just the direction they are heading. Besides, I think it would do well to accurately portray the agenda of the Boy Scouts these days.

All in all one day they will change.

The head office says one thing the local Boy Scouts at the state and county level do another.

They may have "banned" these people, but tomorrow gay men and woman will continue to serve as leaders to their local troop. Young gay men will continue to be Eagle scouts and the head office will continue on their own path which seems to include having their heads in the sand.

It is interesting to read all the commentary on both sides about this issue. Many on both sides take the extreme positions that are not generally helpful to the discourse.

I am an Eagle Scout and credit my time in Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts for developing me into the man, father and scout leader I am today. I completely disagree with this policy as it stands for several reasons.

First, we already have gay scouts and leaders in the organization in every state in this country. They may not serve openly but they are there and the national office knows it. I appreciate the strength and courage these folks show everyday serving in an organization that doesn't openly accept them.

Second, this is not a hate policy. The scouting movement is over 100 years old and has many traditions and policies. Time will change this, look it took the military hundreds of years to officially accept gays even though they too knew they had them among their ranks for years serving our country well.

Third, the decision by the national committee will be largely ignored by the local districts. I serve on the district committee and we rarely ever discuss national decisions. We are most focused on our local packs, troops, crews and ships and the activities they are doing to grow our young men and women into good citizens.

Fourth, the scouts is not a "religious" organization and certainly not Christian. Scouts are expected to be "reverent" NOT religious. To be reverent is to be "deeply respectful" according to the dictionary. We have a duty to God but we do not specify who's God. Even athiests can be reverent. If you look into the religious aspects of the scouts they are optional awards the boys can earn in nearly very religion on earth.

I will continue to support the all local leaders and scouts in my community as they are all adding to the program and the community at large. I will also seek to have this policy changed with time. I don't expect or wish the Boy Scouts to change to public pressure. I want them to make the change because it will benefit the young men and women in our programs.

They are a private group, so they can say who can be members or not. BUT I wouldn't want the government to give them any money for doing so.

Bear Cat

I had my first homosexual experience while in the Boy Scouts with Scout Master Timmy.

I guess they aren't doing the job too well :(

Bear,

If you were a Boy Scout (between 11 and 18 years of age) it wasn't your first homosexual experience, you had your first child molestation.

Andy-1588591,

an outstanding and informative post, thank you....

-

part of the USA is allowing people and groups their divergent viewpoints.... and th listened to their membership... as they should.

the BSA doesn't allow gays

the Congressional Black Caucus doesn't allow white people

the USA doesn't allow people to automatically become citizens without a very specific set of circumstances

groups have the right to set rules that the majority of their members wish, and that's been confirmed by the supreme court. if you are gay, there are plenty of other organizations to belong to.

what's the most disturbing in liberal public opinion today is the immediate rush to call 'bigot'.... everyone wants to jump on that bandwagon no matter what the cause.... my experience is that nearly always, the first person to cry bigot is the worst offender...

I'm a centrist and frequently agree with liberal viewpoint.... but when you guys cry bigot every time there's an issue that involves race or sexual orientation... you look like fools... and worse, you screw over your credibility for when real issues of bigotry come along.

In their statement, they said that they respect the right of the parents to teach their children about this issue when and how they decide. They also respect the right of other organizations to have whatever policies they decide is best for them.

Where is yours?

I am glad the BSA did the right thing - if gays choose to live that lifestyle then they have to live with the results...and when the supporters of the gay lifestyle say it is not a choice, it is funny how they can never come up with any proof...hmmmmm

Hap

It isn't a choice. It is an Orientation. Did you have to make a choice? Were you wondering what it would be like?

Those pup tents are pretty small.

You don't want to get the little scouts too close to each other if one of them have 'those' ideas.

For those of you are concerned about pedophilia it is a fact that most pedophiles, even those that molest boys, are heterosexual. Pedophilia, like rape is not primarily about sex, but about power. For those who say that this decision is not about hate, what if the Boy Scouts decided to ban African-Americans or Hispanics, would that make them a hate group? It's the same thing. Homosexuality is not a choice; it's an orientation.

FAMOUS EAGLE SCOUTS

(Note: In the lists below, I have omitted "Former" from all titles.)

• Henry Aaron - Baseball player, home run king - the Mobile Press Register quoted Henry as saying that the greatest positive influence in his life was his involvement in scouting
• Gary L. Ackerman - U.S. Representative from NY
• Bill Alexander - U.S. Representative from Arkansas
• Lamar Alexander - Lawyer, Governor of Tennessee, Secretary of Education, presidential candidate
• Neil Armstrong - astronaut, first man on moon, from Wapakoneta, OH
• Willie Banks - Olympic & world record holding track star
• Albert Belle - baseball player
• Charles E. Bennett - U.S. Representative from Florida
• William Bennett - Secretary of Education
• Lloyd M. Bentsen, Jr. - Treasury Secretary & U.S. Representative from Texas
• Michael Bloomberg - Mayor of New York City, founder of Bloomberg News
• Bill Bradley - Pro basketball star and U.S. Senator from NJ
• James Brady - Press Secretary to President Reagan
• Stephen Breyer - US Supreme Court Justice
• Milton A. Caniff - Comic strip artist "Steve Canyon"
• Rear Admiral Jay M. Cohen, USN - Undersecretary of Homeland Security
• Barber B. Conable - President, World Bank
• John W. Creighton, Jr. - President & CEO of Weyerhaeuser Company
• William E. Dannemeyer - U.S. Representative from Cal.
• William Devries - M.D., transplanted first artificial heart
• Michael Dukakis - Governor of Massachusetts, presidential candidate
• LTC Aquilla James Dyess - WWII Marine, Medal of Honor recipient (deceased)
• Arthur Eldred - First Eagle Scout
• Daniel J. Evans - Senator and Governor of Washington
• David Farabee - Texas State Representative
• Robert Edward Femoyer - WWII Army Air Force Navigator, Medal of Honor recipient (deceased)
• Rear Admiral Eugene B. Fluckey - WWII Submarine Commander, Medal of Honor recipient (deceased)
• Thomas Foley - Speaker of the House and U.S. Representative from Washington
• Gerald Ford - U.S. President (1st Eagle to be President) (deceased)
• Steven Fossett - Flew solo nonstop around the world in a hot air balloon and in an ultralight airplane, won the Chicago to Mackinaw boat races, competed in the Iditarod dog race, and competed in several iron man triathlons, and among other things lived the Scouting mottos both Cub and Boy Scout by doing his best and being prepared (deceased)
• Murphy J. (Mike) Foster - Governor of Louisiana
• Robert M. Gates - Director of Central Intelligence (CIA) and Secretary. of Defense
• Richard A. Gephardt - U.S. Representative from Missouri, Minority Leader
• Steve Holcomb - Olympic Gold Medal winner -4 man Bobsled
• Admiral Jay Johnson, USN - Chief of Naval Operations
• Michael Kahn - stage director, Oscar winning film editor
• William Henry Keeler - Roman Catholic Cardinal and Archbishop of Baltimore
• Larry Kellner, CEO - Continental Airlines
• Dr. Alfred Kinsey - insect biologist, human behavior researcher
• John Koncak - basketball player
• Sheldon Leonard - actor, director, producer, 3 time Emmy award winner
• Steven W. Lindsey - Astronaut - He was the pilot for STS-95 when John Glenn returned to space as a Senator. He made Eagle in Troop 161 in Temple City, California.
• Gary Locke, Governor of the State of Washington, the first Chinese-American Governor in the contiguous United States, and selected as a Distinguished Eagle Scout by NESA
• James Lovell - Navy pilot and astronaut, President of National Eagle Scout Association. Flew on Gemini 7, 12 & Apollo 8, 13 At one time had seen more sunrises than any other human being
• Richard Lugar - Senator from Indiana (presidential candidate 1996)
• J. Willard Marriott, Jr. - President, Marriott Corp.
• CDR William McCool, USN - Astronaut, Pilot of U.S. Space Shuttle Columbia
• W. Walter Menninger - Physician, civil servant
• Michael Moore - Author and filmmaker, nominated for an Oscar for "Bowling for Columbine"
• Jim Mora - NFL football coach
• Oswald "Ozzie" Nelson - actor
• Sam Nunn - U.S. Senator from Georgia
• Ellison Onizuka - Astronaut aboard the U.S. Space Shuttle Challenger (deceased)
• Steve Oswald - Astronaut, Navy Rear Admiral
• Mitchell Paige - walked 200 miles to enlist in Marines on his 18th birthday in 1936, retired as a Colonel, Medal of Honor. Presented his Eagle award in 2003 after it was verified that he'd not received it in 1936 because he'd joined the Marines. (deceased)
• Francis J. Parater - nominated for Sainthood by Diocese of Richmond, VA. died at age 22 in 1920 in Rome, while at seminary.
• H. Ross Perot - Self-made billionaire and presidential candidate
• Rick Perry - Governor, State of Texas
• J. J. Pickle - U.S. Representative from Texas, proudly displayed his Eagle plaque inside his office (deceased)
• Samuel R. Pierce - Former Sec. Housing & Urban Development
• Frederick Reines - Nobel Prize winner in Physics
• Gary Rogers - Chairman and CEO of Dreyer's Ice Cream
• Jim Rogers - CEO of Kampgrounds of America (KOA)
• Mike Rowe - Star of "Dirty Jobs with Mike Rowe" on the Discovery Channel
• Donald Rumsfeld - Secretary of Defense
• Harrison Salisbury - Pulitzer Prize winning author
• James Sanderson - Vice Admiral, US Navy (Ret), Deputy Chief US Atlantic Fleet
• Dr. Benjamin Lewis Salomon - WWII Army front line surgeon & Medal of Honor recipient (deceased)
• Jeff Sessions - Senator from Alabama
• William Sessions - FBI director
• Sam Skinner - Secretary of Energy during the Bush administration and now CEO of Commonwealth Edison
• Steven Spielberg - Movie producer, from Scottsdale, AZ, made a movie of his troop while getting Photography MB. Helped to design requirements for the cinematography MB.
• Wallace Stegner - Writer and college professor, won Pulitzer Prize in 1972 for "Angle of Repose"
• Percy Sutton - Attorney, Chairman of the Board of City Broadcasting Corp.
• John Tesh - TV celebrity and pianist
• Meldrim Thomson, Jr. - 3 term governor of New Hampshire (deceased)
• Leo K. Thorsness - Vietnam War Air Force Colonel, POW, & Medal of Honor recipient
• Sam Walton - Founder, Wal-Mart (deceased)
• Togo West - Secretary of the Army and Secretary of Veterans Affairs
• Edward O. Wilson - Pellegrino University Professor and curator of entomology at the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University
• Jay Zeamer Jr. - WWII Army Air Force pilot & Medal of Honor recipient (deceased)
• Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr. - Admiral, Chief of Naval Operations

Eagle Facts

Just over 2 million boys have reached Eagle in 100 years (15,000 a year, roughly). Currently, around 4 of every 100 boys that joins Scouts make Eagle--that's less than 1% of the male population.

FAMOUS SCOUTS, but not Eagles

• Richard Dean Anderson - taught Reptile Study, actor
• Charles F. Barber - CEO of American Smelting & refining
• Jimmy Buffett - musician and singer
• George W. Bush - Cub Scout, President of the United States
• Bill Clinton - Cub Scout, President of the United States
• Walter Cronkite - newsman
• Harrison Ford - Life, taught Reptile Study, actor "Indiana Jones" & "Han Solo"
• Bill Gates - Life, founder of Microsoft Corp.
• Richard Gere - Actor
• Andy Griffith - Actor
• David Hartman - TV personality
• Dan Jansen - Olympic Gold Medal - Speed Skating
• Bruce Jenner - Olympic Gold Medal - Decathlon
• John F Kennedy - First US President who was a Scout - See his note to his father about an allowance increase for Scouting
• Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. -Civil rights leader
• Branford Marsalis - Life Scout, Jazz musician
• Bruce Edward Melnick - Astronaut
• Norman Y. Mineta - Mayor of San Jose, CA, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Commerce. Japanese-American, spent WWII in an internment camp in Wyoming, where he met Alan Simpson. (see below)
• Sir Paul McCartney - Rock N Roll, Beatles (UK)
• Jim Morrison - Rock N Roll
• Barack Obama - President of the United States
• Merlin Olson - Pro football player and sportscaster
• Eddie Rabbitt - Country & Western singer
• John Ritter - actor, son of singer Tex Ritter (deceased)
• Richard Roundtree - actor
• Nolan Ryan - pro baseball pitcher
• Alberto Salazar - Life, 3 time winner NY marathon
• John Schneider - Actor, Dukes of Hazard
• Alan Simpson - US Senator from Wyoming. - Boy Scout in Cody Wyoming, where he visited fellow Scouts in a Japanese-American internment camp, and met Norman Mineta (see above), who became his life-long friend. Helped pass the Japanese-American Compensation Act.
• Howard K. Smith - TV newsman
• Mark Spitz - winner of 7 Olympic Gold Medals in swimming
• James Stewart - actor, USAF Brig. General, B-17 pilot in WWII
• George Strait - Singer
• George Takei - actor, Mr. Sulu of Star Trek
• Joe Theisman - Life, former QB, Washington Redskins
• Peter Uberroth - Cub Scout, Commissioner of Baseball
• Paul Winfield - Cub Scout, Actor

All presidents from William Howard Taft on have served as the Honorary President of the Boy Scouts of America. Theodore Roosevelt had left office before the BSA was formed, but he was an Honorary Vice President and Chief Scout Citizen.

The first Scouts in the White House were John and Cavin Cooledge, Jr., sons of President Calvin Coolidge.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the first President of the United States who had been involved with Scouting before he took office. He was instrumental in the purchase of Ten Mile River Scout Camp and received the Silver Buffalo Award in a ceremony held at the camp on August 23, 1930. In 1933, he was made an honorary member of the Suanhacky Lodge of the Order of the Arrow.

John F. Kennedy was the first president who had been a Scout as a youth. He was a member of Troop 2 in Bronxville, New York from 1929 to 1931, attaining the rank of Star Scout. JFK was active in the Boston Council from 1946 to 1955 as district vice chairman, member of the executive board and representative to the National Council.

Gerald Ford was the only Eagle Scout to become president, and received the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award in May 1970.

Ronald Reagan was active with the Golden Empire Council when he was governor. He served on the council's advisory board, he chaired Project SOAR (Save Our American Resources) and was the membership roundup chairman. He was awarded the Silver Beaver Award. As a member of the Los Angeles Area Council, he served as Scoutorama chairman and as a sustaining member.

George H. W. Bush was a Cub Scout.

Bill Clinton was a Cub Scout.

Barack Obama was a Siaga (Cub Scout) in Gerakan Pramuka Indonesia, the national Scouting organization of Indonesia.

You guys who throw around the words "hate" and "bigot" don't seem to understand the legitimate concerns parents would have in setting up practicing homosexual adults as role models, leaders, and on occasion guardians of their boys. A few Christian denominations, whose doctrine shifts with every wind of public opinion, might condone this, but the vast majority of the denominations that support and sponsor the BSA wouldn't. Christ taught love, certainly, but he also taught that sex should be reserved for marriage. He didn't tell the woman taken in adultery that her conduct was acceptable; he saved her from a totally unjust punishment and told her to go and sin no more. Christ was not shy about defying societal norms of his time if they were wrong; if homosexuality in any context were acceptable to him, he would have made that clear. Then, too, if you reject the words of Paul and other Christian leaders shortly after Christ's death who specifically rejected homosexuality and other forms of extramarital sex, you reject the words of people Christ appointed and who knew him and had authority from him to preach his gospel. Until and unless the Lord gives further guidance on the issue, it's not for us to decide that he sanctions extramarital sex or same-sex marriage. Surely he loves practicing homosexuals as well as anyone, but that doesn't mean they can be leaders and examples while they persist in sin. Not to mention that gay and lesbian leaders might use leadership opportunities to promote their lifestyle in ways not condoned by parents. Now many of you couldn't care less about religion and role-models, but the BSA must. It relies on public good will. And there are additional concerns.

There is at least some kind of safeguard in restricting leadership and chaperoning of the Scouts to married and at least apparently heterosexual men, usually members of the same church; there's no way I'd knowingly let my daughter go off camping under the direct supervision of adult men or women that would be attracted to girls, even if they were supposedly committed to others. It's simple, time-tested prudence where sexual attraction and hormones are concerned, and I would be negligent as a parent if I allowed my child to be put at extra risk. The BSA--not you decriers--would take the heat and be liable if anything did happen and it knew of any additional risk factors. You can't reasonably ask them to take on that kind of potential liability, and if you force the issue in this sex-obsessed world you simply hasten the sad day when no responsible parent can trust anyone to provide these kinds of opportunities for their child without abusing the privilege.

Woodshed

How many of those were Gay?

How many were Straight?

Does it really matter?

There have been many great people that were Gay.

There is no good reason for the 2 not to mix.

I was in Scouting too. Why didn't you list me?

Well, as usual... there's a lotta hate coming from the "religion of love and brotherhood".

That's all I've come to expect from christianity and christians after my 50+ years living in the US.

Anyone different, anyone non-christian...they hate. It never fails. You can set a clock by their hatred and intolerance.

The "religion of love and brotherhood" -- never has there been a greater hypocrisy, nor a greater departure from its own Golden Rule teachings. Lowlife POS's are what make up its ranks, and very little else.

Bern

I am a Christian, I argue for Gay acceptance.

Prejudice has never overcome prejudice.

Im'a start simple. Private organization=prescribed doctrine (rules, guidelines, standards of conduct)
Note that the Boy Scout Oath has traditionally been considered to have three promises. Those three promises are delineated by the semicolons in the Oath, which divide it into three clauses. The three promises of the Scout Oath are, therefore:
•Duty to God and country,
•Duty to other people, and
•Duty to self

DUTY TO GOD AND COUNTRY: Your family and religious leaders teach you to know and serve God. By following these teachings, you do your duty to God.

Men and women of the past worked to make America great, and many gave their lives for their country. By being a good family member and a good citizen, by working for your country's good and obeying its laws, you do your duty to your country. Obeying the Scout Law means living by its 12 points.

DUTY TO OTHER PEOPLE: Many people need help. A cheery smile and a helping hand make life easier for others. By doing a Good Turn daily and helping when you're needed, you prove yourself a Scout and do your part to make this a better world.

DUTY TO SELF: Keeping yourself physically strong means taking care of your body. Eat the right foods and build your strength. Staying mentally awake means learn all you can, be curious, and ask questions. Being morally straight means to live your life with honesty, to be clean in your speech and actions, and to be a person of strong character.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boy Scout Law

A Scout is:
•Trustworthy,
•Loyal,
•Helpful,
•Friendly,
•Courteous,
•Kind,
•Obedient,
•Cheerful,
•Thrifty,
•Brave,
•Clean,
•and Reverent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boy Scout Motto

Be Prepared!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boy Scout Slogan

Do a Good Turn Daily!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Outdoor Code

As an American, I will do my best to -
•Be clean in my outdoor manners
•Be careful with fire
•Be considerate in the outdoors, and
•Be conservation minded.

from usscouts.org/advance/boyscout/bsoathlaw.asp

There is no GLBT bashing listed in that synopsis. In fact, It references a strong adherence to GOD, and of course through CHRIST all humanity's sins have been forgiven, (another topic on JESUS word's of Go and Sin no more, in a different blog)

I'm not sure what's scarier: The fact that an organization so rife with self-serving intolerance for other continues to retain a special federal charter, or the fact that so many of its supporters defend self-serving intolerance with such vigor and passion.

Is same sex marriage a constitutional right? I don't see it listed anywhere.

Marriage is considered a civil right. See Loving v Virginia. If you read into that case, you might find some rather stark similarities between the arguments against interracial marriage and the arguments against same-sex marriage.

It's simple, time-tested prudence where sexual attraction and hormones are concerned, and I would be negligent as a parent if I allowed my child to be put at extra risk

The great majority of pedophelia (upwards of 90%) is perpetrated by heterosexual men.

the BSA doesn't allow gays

the Congressional Black Caucus doesn't allow white people

Key difference, the black caucus is the black caucus which discusses issues having to do with being black in America.

The BSA is not the 'heterosexual boys scouts of America, and their main purpose is not to discuss issues having to do with heterosexuality in America. In fact, their primary purpose has nothing to do with sexuality... but the black caucus has everything to do with being black in America. Apples v Elephants...

The BSA is a private organization.

And they have the right to be bigoted, as does every American acting in a private role. That doesn't make it right, though. I say let them shout from the mountaintops their antiquated belief systems; because it will only ensure their extinction all the more swiftly.

Boy Scout Oath

The Meaning of the Boy Scout Oath

Excerpted from page 45-46, Boy Scout Handbook, 11th ed,
(#33105), copyright 1998 by BSA, ISBN 0-8395-3105-2

and from page 420-421, Webelos Scout Book, 1998 edition,
(#33108), copyright 1998 by BSA, ISBN 0-8395-3108-7

Before you pledge yourself to any oath or promise, you must know what it means. The paragraphs that follow will help you understand the meaning of the Scout Oath.

On my honor . . .

By giving your word, you are promising to be guided by the ideals of the Scout Oath.

. . . I will do my best . . .

Try hard to live up to the points of the Scout Oath. Measure your achievements against your own high standards and don't be influenced by peer pressure or what other people do.

. . . To do my duty to God . . .

Your family and religious leaders teach you about God and the ways you can serve. You do your duty to God by following the wisdom of those teachings every day and by respecting and defending the rights of others to practice their own beliefs.

. . . and my country . . .

Help keep the United States a strong and fair nation by learning about our system of government and your responsibilities as a citizen and future voter.

America is made up of countless families and communities. When you work to improve your community and your home, you are serving your country. Natural resources are another important part of America's heritage worthy of your efforts to understand, protect, and use wisely. What you do can make a real difference.

. . . and to obey the Scout Law; . . .

The twelve points of the Scout Law are guidelines that can lead you toward wise choices. When you obey the Scout Law, other people will respect you for the way you live, and you will respect yourself.

. . . To help other people at all times; . . .

There are many people who need you. Your cheerful smile and helping hand will ease the burden of many who need assistance. By helping out whenever possible, you are doing your part to make this a better world.

. . . To keep myself physically strong, . . .

Take care of your body so that it will serve you well for an entire lifetime. That means eating nutritious foods, getting enough sleep, and exercising regularly to build strength and endurance. it also means avoiding harmful drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and anything else that can harm your health.

. . . mentally awake, . . .

Develop your mind both in the classroom and outside of school. Be curious about everything around you, and work hard to make the most of your abilities. With an inquiring attitude and the willingness to ask questions, you can learn much about the exciting world around you and your role in it.

. . . and morally straight.

To be a person of strong character, your relationships with others should be honest and open. You should respect and defend the rights of all people. Be clean in your speech and actions, and remain faithful in your religious beliefs. The values you practice as a Scout will help you shape a life of virtue and self-reliance.

Read all of the Boy Scout excerpts from the handbook that I BOLDLY highlighted. The Boy Scouts of America, which i once was a part of as a boy, is a fantastic way to see a closeup view of the world around you. Why should some boys and parents be denied the rights that are highlighted in this fantastic book.

Tolerance? The homosexual community has no idea what tolerance is and has never practiced it. If I say even one word, GOD, I am resoundly pounced on and proclaimed to be many things by people who know nothing about me. They make fun of my God by calling Him a fairie in the sky and they ridicule my for my beliefs by calling me stupid, idiot, etc. And then they have the audacity to claim others as intolerant. Homosexuality is a blight on humanity and if allowed to progress and grow will culminate in the extinction of humans.

I certainly am not going to buy any of their cookies. No, wait a minute. They don't sell cookies. Maybe it's too feminine!

Realist,

It could be because you are using that one word, god, to restrict their rights.

Maybe.

They make fun of my God by calling Him a fairie in the sky and they ridicule my for my beliefs by calling me stupid, idiot, etc.

Perhaps it's your constant use of your "God" to attempt to justify your intolerance that causes gays and those who support equality to ridicule you, as well as to show YOU the same intolerance you advocate.

Homosexuality is a blight on humanity and if allowed to progress and grow will culminate in the extinction of humans.

One of the most stupid comments ever posted: homosexuality has existed in approximately the same percentage of the population since humankind has existed.

It is irrational to expect respect for calls to be tolerant of BSA intolerance. That's like demanding the state not incarcerate kidnappers.

Does the US military still sponsor the Jamboree at a cost of $11 mil? And if so, will that continue? Second, what about that perpetual charter which is part of the US Code? Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . which it sure looks like BSA is -doesn't matter whether it considers itself inclusive in regard to religion, there is still the invocation of God--and the gay Scouting thing sure looks like an expression of BSA official religiosity, as opposed to the religiosity being some kind of expression of "civic religion". Perhaps, in light of the gay policy, the religious nature of the organization warrants revisiting by the courts?

I would not expect any Scout leader of any gender to be discussing or displaying their sexual behavior. . . OTOH it is hard to avoid partners (or spouses, depending on the state) to make some appearance on the scene in connection with Scouting activities).

Do Eagle Scouts automatically still get a pay grade increase over non-Scouts when they enter the military?

As a mother with 2 boys in Scouting I agree with the decision. First of all the issue of banning gay scouts: Give me a break...these are 8 to 18 year old children. (and very few boys participate until they are 18, most find other activities by about 15-16) In our society today we have sexualized children far too young. While some children have "attractions" to others, their lives should not be so taken up with dating and such during these years anyway. My children (I have 5) are not allowed to even date or have boyfriends or girlfriends until age 16. Honest consideration of their sexual orientation shouldn't come into play until they are of dating age anyway. Why are we forcing our children to grow up so early in this society?

As far as gay Scout leaders go. No leader should be bringing up their sexual practices in relation to scouting activities. If this ever became a topic of conversation in my boys troop...We would find another troop. The main problem comes with logistics. Scout leaders have to be ultra careful to protect the children. If we have openly gay leaders...how do we house them at camps? Do we have heterosexual scout tents, heterosexual leader tents, gay scout tents and gay leader tents? Don't forget the tents for the bisexual members.

I just sent my two boys for 16 days with their troop leaders to Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico. It is 3 states away from where I live. I had to have complete faith in the troop leaders to keep my boys safe in EVERY way. They tell me they had communal latrine facilities....would I want my boys dealing with gay issues in that situation. Absolutely not! It has nothing to do with hate. I wouldn't want my boys sharing restroom and bathing facilities with women and girls either.

Michelle: Your first paragraph outlines the best reason to vacate the BSA policy. If, as you claim, sexuality is not a matter of context , then BSA should not be making any decisions based on someone's sexual orientation. They should not address sexuality at all, according to you, and that includes not excluding scout leaders or scouts who just happen to be homosexual. The matter simply shouldn't be anyone's business, not even yours, as a parent of another scout in the troop.

Your second paragraph is generally irrelevant, since it isn't typically the scout leaders who bring their sexuality into the matter, but rather others, who know their sexuality through other means, who do so. You are advocating for punishing the victims, and that's despicable.

Your third paragraph presents the all-too-typical ignorant attitude toward homosexuals in society, and demonstrates just how important it is to vacate self-serving intolerance such as is practiced by the BSA, so that parents like you aren't bringing up another generation of folks who will cling to such offensively bigoted attitudes.

Michelle from the woods:

Honest consideration of their sexual orientation shouldn't come into play until they are of dating age anyway.

It frightens me that people with so little knowledge of the process of human development are trusted to raise children.

Maybe the process of coming out wouldn't be so painful for so many teenagers if they had been allowed to openly and honestly consider their gender identity and sexual orientation when they first became aware of it (which happens long before 16).

All I am saying is that we are forcing our children to make judgements about themselves far to early. I think children should have the luxury to figure these things out for themselves over time. Not on some excellerated time frame that seems to be common in America. Why is it that elementary children feel the need to call each other boyfriend or girlfriend, instead of just friend? Why is it that society seems to think it is OK for 12 year olds to be "dating"? I had several high school friends that in 9th grade were chasing girls...then in 10th grade proclaiming themselves gay...but by senior year were dating girls again. These are years to learn about ones'self. And actual sexual attractions should not come into serious play until much later. We have made sex such a casual thing nowdays that we have stolen our childrens childhoods in the process.

@Ash- You make incorrect assumptions when you say I have "so little knowlege of the process of human development". I studied Early Childhood Education in college, including developmental psych. I know how children develop and grow. Yes, understanding human sexuality is integral to the growing up process of each of us, but we force children to make hard fast judgements about themselves FAR too early. I would prefer children make these decision after their brains have developed sufficiently to be capable of abstract thinking and to be able to understand consequences.

I was glad when my 7 year old honestly didn't know what sex was. I was happy to have the birds and bees discussion with my 10 year olds, so they weren't taken by surprise with puberty. I charished the opportunities I had to have deep meaningful very frank discussions about sex, boys and love with my 17 year old children. So far my adult children have chosen to save all sexual activity until marriage because we have taught them that sex is a sacred thing. I think I have done an excellent job letting my children discover their own sexuality at age appropriate times!

Here in America, we all have rights. And if you want to take away someone's rights, you have to have a pretty damn good reason (either evidence that they have committed a crime, or evidence that they are medically unable to take care of themselves/similar medical situations). You CANNOT take away someone's rights just cause.

So what proof do you have? What justifiable reason do you have to take away the rights of the LGBT community?

You don't, do you. You go by your beliefs, your morals. So you make someone else's life worse because youbelieve. There is no proof there is an afterlife. There is no proof there is a God. There is no proof that LGBTs should be treated any different. All there is to justify those beliefs is a book of fairytales written 2000 years ago by men with highly questionable morals. But you want to ruin their only guaranteed life because of your beliefs. Not proof. Beliefs.

Sorry, this is America. You need something a little more concrete than belief to take away someone's rights. There is no logical justification for taking away someone's rights in the here and now because some people believe in an afterlife.

I just don't understand why. Why do you treat them like @!$%#? Isn't that supposed afterlife in hell going to be bad enough? Spending an eternity in eternal fire isn't punishment enough? Or are you worried that they'll convince the children to become homosexual? Tell me, when did you decide to be heterosexual? Are you telling me that someone could have convinced you to become attracted to someone the same sex as you? And who the hell would choose to be homosexual? With the way they are treated today, no one in their right mind wouldchoose to be homosexual. I'd love to hear a logical explanation for why homophobia exists, but I'm willing to bet all the money in the world no one will be able to come up with one.

And to anyone else complaining about the homosexual "flaunting their sexuality" or "forcing it on you", I see it the exact opposite way. YOU'RE the ones that are forcing things upon homosexuals. If you just gave them the same rights as heterosexuals, they would leave you alone. Trust me, homosexuals want nothing to do with homophobes. Just give them their civil rights and they'll leave you alone.

Homosexuality is practiced in over 1500 species. Homophobia is practiced in only 1. You tell me which one is unnatural.

Quite possibly the best post out of every single one of these.

Peace-3229398

Boy Scouts have lost my respect and my support...........

#1.18 - Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:24 PM EDT

What, like the BSA had your respect and support before this? The decision to uphold traditional values couldn't have been a surprise to you, as the values and principles of the organization are not a secret.

demmie-1555521

Boy Scout Oath

The Meaning of the Boy Scout Oath

Excerpted from page 45-46, Boy Scout Handbook, 11th ed,
(#33105), copyright 1998 by BSA, ISBN 0-8395-3105-2

and from page 420-421, Webelos Scout Book, 1998 edition,
(#33108), copyright 1998 by BSA, ISBN 0-8395-3108-7

Before you pledge yourself to any oath or promise, you must know what it means. The paragraphs that follow will help you understand the meaning of the Scout Oath.

On my honor . . .

By giving your word, you are promising to be guided by the ideals of the Scout Oath.

. . . I will do my best . . .

Try hard to live up to the points of the Scout Oath. Measure your achievements against your own high standards and don't be influenced by peer pressure or what other people do.

. . . To do my duty to God . . .

Your family and religious leaders teach you about God and the ways you can serve. You do your duty to God by following the wisdom of those teachings every day and by respecting and defending the rights of others to practice their own beliefs.

. . . and my country . . .

Help keep the United States a strong and fair nation by learning about our system of government and your responsibilities as a citizen and future voter.

America is made up of countless families and communities. When you work to improve your community and your home, you are serving your country. Natural resources are another important part of America's heritage worthy of your efforts to understand, protect, and use wisely. What you do can make a real difference.

. . . and to obey the Scout Law; . . .

The twelve points of the Scout Law are guidelines that can lead you toward wise choices. When you obey the Scout Law, other people will respect you for the way you live, and you will respect yourself.

. . . To help other people at all times; . . .

There are many people who need you. Your cheerful smile and helping hand will ease the burden of many who need assistance. By helping out whenever possible, you are doing your part to make this a better world.

. . . To keep myself physically strong, . . .

Take care of your body so that it will serve you well for an entire lifetime. That means eating nutritious foods, getting enough sleep, and exercising regularly to build strength and endurance. it also means avoiding harmful drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and anything else that can harm your health.

. . . mentally awake, . . .

Develop your mind both in the classroom and outside of school. Be curious about everything around you, and work hard to make the most of your abilities. With an inquiring attitude and the willingness to ask questions, you can learn much about the exciting world around you and your role in it.

. . . and morally straight.

To be a person of strong character, your relationships with others should be honest and open. You should respect and defend the rights of all people. Be clean in your speech and actions, and remain faithful in your religious beliefs. The values you practice as a Scout will help you shape a life of virtue and self-reliance.

Read all of the Boy Scout excerpts from the handbook that I BOLDLY highlighted. The Boy Scouts of America, which i once was a part of as a boy, is a fantastic way to see a closeup view of the world around you. Why should some boys and parents be denied the rights that are highlighted in this fantastic book.

#1.149 - Wed Jul 18, 2012 10:48 AM EDT

Hmm...I'm an Eagle Scout myself, and although my copy of The Official Boy Scout Handbook was printed in 1984 and the one you cited is from 1998, the Oath and Law are still the same. I find it fascinating that you could overlook certain portions when you were busy highlighting things in bold...probably because they undermine the point you were trying to make. Being "morally straight," "clean," and "reverent," and doing your "duty to God" are all incompatible with homosexual activity.

Don't like that fact? Then change your lifestyle or else don't join an organization whose values you don't share and you aren't interested in upholding.

Being "morally straight," "clean," and "reverent," and doing your "duty to God" are all incompatible with homosexual activity.

How is that so, Jim? Homosexuals are as "morally straight," "clean," and "reverent" as anyone else, and many of them certainly do their "duty to God" -- if they are religious.

They are certainly more "morally straight" than the likes of you. BTW, morality is subjective, and the BSA has shown that they (and their adherents) certainly don't practice what they preach.

ErinNJ

Being "morally straight," "clean," and "reverent," and doing your "duty to God" are all incompatible with homosexual activity.

How is that so, Jim? Homosexuals are as "morally straight," "clean," and "reverent" as anyone else, and many of them certainly do their "duty to God" -- if they are religious.

They are certainly more "morally straight" than the likes of you. BTW, morality is subjective, and the BSA has shown that they (and their adherents) certainly don't practice what they preach.

#1.164 - Wed Jul 18, 2012 11:15 PM EDT

First sentence - As if you didn't already know exactly "how so" and have chosen to ignore it? That's how you espouse the views that you do. Puh-leeze.

Your second sentence is a farce, unworthy of further comment.

And then, your third sentence immediately diverges into the personal insults (baseless and unwarranted, but that never seems to bother you).

Then you use the fourth sentence to launch a baseless attack on the BSA and its members/supporters.

I thought you fancied yourself an informed and logical debater, but you must really want to be the first to make my "ignore" list. As it is, I've already been reporting the posts for the frequent personal attacks...

Your second sentence is a farce, unworthy of further comment.

Because you have no facts to back up your insults of homosexuals? But you've never let that stop you before!

Then you use the fourth sentence to launch a baseless attack on the BSA and its members/supporters.

I see you're completely ignorant of the widespread cover-up within the BSA of the numerous cases of sexual abuse committed by its members -- including scoutmasters. Added to the [long] list of Jim's ignorance.

Now try to defend their "morality," "cleanliness," and "reverence". I'm sure someone like you will have no trouble justifying it -- after all, you use your so-called "Christianity" to justify homophobia and bigotry.

ErinNJ

Your second sentence is a farce, unworthy of further comment.

Because you have no facts to back up your insults of homosexuals? But you've never let that stop you before!

Then you use the fourth sentence to launch a baseless attack on the BSA and its members/supporters.

I see you're completely ignorant of the widespread cover-up within the BSA of the numerous cases of sexual abuse committed by its members -- including scoutmasters. Added to the [long] list of Jim's ignorance.

Now try to defend their "morality," "cleanliness," and "reverence". I'm sure someone like you will have no trouble justifying it -- after all, you use your so-called "Christianity" to justify homophobia and bigotry.

#1.166 - Wed Jul 18, 2012 11:39 PM EDT

Hmmm...I didn't write "insults of homosexuals" but let's just go with it for argument's sake. I said that homosexual activity was incompatible with elements of the Scout Oath and Law--something that is self-evident to everyone that hasn't twisted their moral compass to fit PC standards, as you have. But to spell it out for the ignorant troll that you are....homosexual activity is immoral deviant behavior--that is the traditional value standard--and it is not pleasing to God (the traditional Christian standard).

If you really need someone to break down the definitions of what it means to be "morally straight," "clean," "reverent," and to do your "duty to God," then I suggest you go pick up a Boy Scout Handbook and read it--but I'm betting you'd simply twist what it says as others on here have already tried to do (you even jumped in on this thread in response to something I said about one of them, so don't bother pretending I'm wrong).

Please stop trying to present the violation of BSA's principles by some individuals as some kind of evidence that the principles themselves are somehow flawed or to blame for the actions of those individuals. We'll just add it to the long list of your logical fallacies and disingenuous argumentation attempts.

I've never tried to justify anyone having an irrational fear of homosexuals (homophobia), nor have I tried to justify animosity toward members of a group (bigotry). However, your own bigotry toward Christians and anyone who doesn't share your views is well documented on these boards.

Intolerance, bigotry, and ignorance, thy name is "ErinNJ"! And, welcome to my "ignore" list. There are some intelligent leftists on here that offer more than ignorant insults and logical fallacy. You simply don't rate.

homosexual activity is immoral deviant behavior

Really? By whose standards? YOURS? When were you appointed the "one" who gets to decide what is immoral and deviant?

FYI, more heterosexuals engage in that same behavior than homosexuals do. And if YOU'VE ever had a blow job, you're one of them.

I've never tried to justify anyone having an irrational fear of homosexuals (homophobia),

Another FYI: homophobia is the irrational fear of, or antipathy toward, homosexuals and homosexuality. So while you may not "fear" them, you certainly meet the criteria for antipathy -- which you have always "justified" with the excuse that "God doesn't like it".

However, your own bigotry toward Christians and anyone who doesn't share your views is well documented on these boards

My bigotry is not toward Christians; it is toward christo-bigots: those like you who try to support your propagation of hatred and prejudice with your so-called "Christianity".

All I am saying is that we are forcing our children to make judgements about themselves far to early.

That's precisely what the BSA policy, which you support does. Opposing the BSA policy would be the remedy to the problem you are referring to, within the context of BSA itself. BSA is making sexuality an issue. BSA - a collection of adults - is sexualizing an activity intended for children.

Don't like that fact? Then change your lifestyle or else don't join an organization whose values you don't share and you aren't interested in upholding.

If you want your organization to have the freedom to be so disrespectful to others, then at least have the honor (something which as an Eagle scout you claim to have) to step forward and demand that the BSA renounce its federal charter. Have the honor to demand that the BSA no longer be the recipient of any special privileges in our society, that other discriminatory organizations are prohibited from enjoying.

I said that homosexual activity was incompatible with elements of the Scout Oath and Law--something that is self-evident to everyone that hasn't twisted their moral compass to fit PC standards, as you have.

You do realize that people can just scroll up and see that you're not telling the truth. You wrote, specifically, "Being 'morally straight,' 'clean,' and 'reverent,' and doing your 'duty to God' are all incompatible with homosexual activity." You didn't qualify that: You stated it outright. And it is false. I know. I know what is and is not moral, what is and is not clean, what is and is not reverent, and what is and is not our duties to God. Your comments indicate that you don't: They indicate that you believe that you own personal preferences, perhaps shaped by your specific upbringing or specific adult subscriptions, are the be-all and end-all of what is and is not God's law. You are in error. The world does not revolve around you. There are seven billion people in this planet. If your conceptualization of God pretends to classify the vast majority of them as ungodly then you are engaging in a petty self-delusion. If your beliefs and values seek to place you above seven billion other people, then you are almost surely guilty of the sin of hubris. At the very least, such convictions have no credence or honor.

BSA supporters may choose to live their lives in accordance with despicably intolerant dogma, but that is their sin, not something to be proud of. It is the kind of behavior toward others that the most intelligent bigots have the good sense to try to hide.

Jim5769,

I find it fascinating that you could overlook certain portions when you were busy highlighting things in bold...probably because they undermine the point you were trying to make

So it's ok for you to give your interpretation of the Scout oath, but the other words you choose not to give an explanation of, are just filler material. Right? You didn't follow the scout oath very well.

by respecting and defending the rights of others to practice their own beliefs.

So much for your oath promise. It's you, or nothing.

your relationships with others should be honest and open. You should respect and defend the rights of all people.

What about my right to be a scout? Again, personal attacks. You didn't follow the oath.

Don't like that fact? Then change your lifestyle or else don't join an organization whose values you don't share and you aren't interested in upholding.

There are gay scouts, gay football players, gay politicians,that have no animosity to other people. You, on the other hand, are taking it to a new level, trying to spin what is already written in the Scout oath, to your own personal interpretation.How do you know if a gay boy will change for the better, by being a scout? What is written, is written. You can't change it. Accept it.

Jesus accepted all people that wanted to be with him.

This whole discussion is boring. I'm going back to a Zimmerman story.

What an age of political correctness were falling into.

Every one on here is shouting Discrimination, gya bashing, hatred .. where is the proof ? The CEO of the place said respectfully that they will stand by their beliefs until the day Boy scouts end. He never said anything about hate, there is no discrimination.

Lets look at our politcally correct world. People take tests to be on the police force, or any organization like that. There is a standard set to pass, questions, physical abilities. The Political Correctness part of our society has pressured to allow people who had sub standard scores and or lacked the ability to pass other tests, but they would be allowed to join the force because the PC crowd demands that some minorities are hired. So we had a standard set, but it had to be lowered to allow people who didnt meet the standard.

Same thing applies here. The BSA has a standard or morality and a view of traditional family man, woman, kids. The have biblical view on morality and homsexuality is a sin. If the BSA doesnt want that in their organization , then they have the right to do that. Escpecially them being a private one.

How would you like if a group came into your lives and started to demand you change the way live, and everything else in your life that is against what you like doing ? You wouldnt like that very much would you. So how can any of you come on here and demand that a private organization accepts something that are against. How dare any of you. Take your PC nonsense else where.

What I dont get is why havent any of you all started a new Scout organization ? Even IF the BSA ever changed their view, you know it would be due to Political correctness, and not because they changed their minds personally. Why would you want to be part of that , if its something you hate so much ? Why cant you all make gay scouts of America ? Gays dont seem to have a problem making the thousand other liberal groups out there. Should I even mention some of the Gay activist groups that spew their hatred ?

Birds of a feather Flock together. Remember that saying ? In such a diverse america , diverse world, sometimes its just better to stay with your own to make life easier. I could take all the people on this forum and probably split us up into 15 categories of people. All of which clash with each other. Why do it ? Why make people accept something they dont want to ?

BSA have their rights too, but it seems those rights dont mean anything to anyone. Lets take your private rights away, and see how you feel.

Ill end with what i stated in the beginning. Show me an example of Hate, show me Discrimination, show me bigots , gay bashing.. any of that.. name calling isnt enough, Make a valid point.

What an age of political correctness were falling into.

Says the poster who elsewhere in this thread defended the hateful actions of BSA, trying to claim that acting against people (firing, expelling) on the basis of their sexual orientation isn't hateful. Black is white and up is down, too, in your book, I bet. This isn't a matter of political correctness. You can call them "faggots" for all I care, as long as your doing so doesn't foster a hostile work environment for them or make them feel unwelcome as a participant in scouting. It isn't the political correctness or incorrectness that is the issue here - the issue is justice and fairness.

He never said anything about hate

So what you're saying is that he's not only fostering hate, but also being dishonorable in the process by lying about it. Aren't boy scouts supposed to be truthful? Then why do the folks in charge lie so grievously and seemingly without remorse for the hateful actions they take?

The BSA has a standard or morality and a view of traditional family man, woman, kids.

And thirty years ago there were groups that had a standard that had a view against interracial marriage - that doesn't make it "morality". An unjust, unfair standard is still immoral. BSA makes no bones about their standard. Yes, they claim it is moral, but they're lying, and you're repeating their lie. Their standard is immoral, because it fails to affirm and promote the value and dignity of every person. If you need it brought down to a kindergarten level, let's just say it violates the Golden Rule.

What I dont get is why havent any of you all started a new Scout organization ?

Why don't they start a new "Bigoted Scouts of America" organization, without a federal charter.

BSA have their rights too

Some of which they sacrifice as a matter of honor in accepting a federal charter and the benefits thereof.

Ill end with what i stated in the beginning. Show me an example of Hate, show me Discrimination, show me bigots , gay bashing.. any of that.. name calling isnt enough, Make a valid point.

The valid point has been made for you several times. It clearly behooves you to close your eyes to the irrefutable proof shown to you - to close your heart to the unjust hatred that you express support for.

WaltUU

What an age of political correctness were falling into.

Says the poster who elsewhere in this thread defended the hateful actions of BSA, trying to claim that acting against people (firing, expelling) on the basis of their sexual orientation isn't hateful. Black is white and up is down, too, in your book, I bet. This isn't a matter of political correctness. You can call them "faggots" for all I care, as long as your doing so doesn't foster a hostile work environment for them or make them feel unwelcome as a participant in scouting. It isn't the political correctness or incorrectness that is the issue here - the issue is justice and fairness.

Nothing hateful walt. There is a Big difference between firing someone because their gay, and letting someone go because they dont meet the requirements of a job. Would you be comfortable having Joe the plumber taking care of your 401 k or future nest egg ? A standard is set in the Boy Scouts, where they dont want people of same sex orientation is leadership. If this woman would have kept her personal life discreet no one would had ever known her orientation. Well , from looking at her you can tell, but no one would be 100 % for sure unless that person comes out of the Closet and announces it to the world like so many of them do. Like any of us really care. So you dont meet the standard , your gone. Not because your gay.. Should parks allow kids who are not tall enough to get on rides , ride ? Height discrimination, should guys be allowed to all female colleges ? Gender Discrimination. You get my point yet ? You dont meet the criteria, your gone.

And thirty years ago there were groups that had a standard that had a view against interracial marriage - that doesn't make it "morality". An unjust, unfair standard is still immoral. BSA makes no bones about their standard. Yes, they claim it is moral, but they're lying, and you're repeating their lie. Their standard is immoral, because it fails to affirm and promote the value and dignity of every person. If you need it brought down to a kindergarten level, let's just say it violates the Golden Rule.

Thats not a biblical point of view on inter-racial marriage. No where does it ever say anything about not marrying other ethic groups. Only thing bible says about marriage in that regards is a believer and a non believer should not get married and be unevenly yolked together.

The bsa standard is immoral to you but not to a GOD who recognizes why he put man and woman on this earth. BSA does treat everyone with respect. Did they talk down to her ? Did they grab her by the scruff of her neck pull her into some gay bashing circle and belittle her ? No they didnt.

Ill be back on next break at work to finish this.

Nothing hateful walt. ... A standard is set in the Boy Scouts

A definitively hateful standard, that persecutes people not based on their capabilities but rather because of the unjust and petty antipathy by the BSA for a class of people.

where they dont want people of same sex orientation is leadership. If this woman would have kept her personal life discreet no one would had ever known her orientation.

My employer may not like that some of our employees are very conservative politically, but it is not acceptable to fire them if they're seen at a Romney rally. And political pursuasion, something each person definitively chooses, is far less worthy of protection than sexual orientation, which is innate.

Should parks allow kids who are not tall enough to get on rides , ride ? Height discrimination

Wrong! I cannot believe you cannot tell the difference between discrimination and SAFETY. How ridiculous can you get?

should guys be allowed to all female colleges ? Gender Discrimination.

I wonder if you're going to allow yourself to appreciate the nuances necessary to acknowledge why women's colleges pass the test: They are REACTIONS to a well-established pattern of discrimination against women in our society that still works against women unjustly, and therefore serve, at least for now, as a means of buffering the negative impact of the discrimination against women until such time as women are no longer a persecuted class.

You get my point yet ?

I get your point: You're grasping at straws to find some way to legitimize the offensive hate that the BSA engages in.

Thats not a biblical point of view on inter-racial marriage.

All religions are protected equally in this country. A "biblical" view has no place in establishing the standards for which that entities with federal charters, and entities that otherwise enjoy the benefits of government's fostering of society, operate in accordance.

If you want a "biblical" scouting organization, then start your own, without a federal charter.

The bsa standard is immoral to you but not to a GOD who recognizes why he put man and woman on this earth.

Your favored Pauline corruption of the true nature of God doesn't justify the BSA practicing hate.

Until you can make a solid case for BSA hatred then no more need to discuss it. You still havent shown me anything that shows this direct hate .. The only hate I detect here is your rejection of the notion of people having biblical values on the ideal family setting for humanity.

Again tell me how BSA must adhere to anyone elses belief system. WHo are any of you to tell them what they need to accept. Its not your right, tough luck , and live with it, its their right, their duty to stand for the Correct moral standard set by God.. Got an issue with that take it up with God when you die.

I'm sure it would be better, for those who refuse to acknowledge hate directed at those they personally don't care about, if people who do care about others to stop pointing out such things.

I have shown you "direct hate". You chose to refuse to acknowledge it as hate. You appear to only view as hate that which offends you personally, whether directed at you or directed at the people you choose to respect, and refuse to see hate when it doesn't offend you - when it is against people for which who you apparently are perfectly fine with hate being directed.

The BSA is the federally chartered scouting organization for boys in the United States and therefore must reflect America's values to retain legitimate claim to that charter - values that encompass respect for all Americans, not just the Americans you like.

You assert that there is "no more need to discuss it". Wrong. There is need to discuss hate until those who fail to recognized it learn their error, and action is taken to do what is just and fair, eliminating the hate. Don't like it? "Tough luck, and live with it". It is the right and the obligation of people of conscience to highlight injustice even if people who don't care about others don't want to be bothered by such conscientiousness.

The BSA's standard does not reflect God's values; it reflects the values of some people in the United States, people who demonstrate their unworthiness in God's eyes by failing to affirm and promote the value of all people, by seeking to elevate their own personal values over that of others.

What is becoming clear is that the only way to even begin etching away at the armor such people have placed around the source of their offensives perspectives is to speak to them in their own language, teaching them that using their own beliefs and values to judge other people, instead of judging those other people by the beliefs and values that those that those other people subscribe to, is sinful hubris. To make clear that acting on such corruption in judging others is the indefensible act of hate.

The only hate on here is you WaltUU.

You just can't stand the fact there is a faith based organization out there that conflicts with YOUR beliefs, so you have to bash it. Any one who does not believe the same way as you are a bigot and a homophobe.

Bull@!$%#. YOUR the problem, YOUR the hate monger, not the BSA. Go crawl back under your stinking rock.

Did that get that silliness out of your system? Or do you have more irrational ranting to spew attacking another poster instead of addressing the issue?

The BSA is the federally chartered scouting organization for boys in the United States and therefore must reflect America's values to retain legitimate claim to that charter - values that encompass respect for all Americans, not just the Americans you like.

WALT !!! Americas Values change all the time.. You keep blathering about respecting peoples rights and beliefs, and at the same time, give no regard to the person your saying that to. IN america in the past , the standard was ONe man, one woman, to be the ideal setting and best option for raising a child. Now a days with the liberal left, and the breaking of so many boundaries to accommadate everyone and anything under the sun minus christians , we have a society full of anger, crime, weird stuff going on every day. Your trying to set an absolute standard , and have to absolute to compare it to. Trying to have Man as an absolute authority of standard is scary and also illogical, because by what right does a person have to hold a personal standard to begin with ? Its all open to matter of differences.

The BSA's standard does not reflect God's values; it reflects the values of some people in the United States, people who demonstrate their unworthiness in God's eyes by failing to affirm and promote the value of all people, by seeking to elevate their own personal values over that of others.

Ya walt, all people except Christians, then let the pack of wolves loose in their belief system that you hate so much and dont respect. Your the hater.

You keep blathering about respecting peoples rights and beliefs

That fact that you consider it "blathering" says just about all there needs to be said about your perspective.

... the ideal setting and best option for raising a child.

We're not talking about making babies: We're talking about scouting. The "ideal setting" for that involves promoting and affirming the worth and dignity of everyone, not just the people you like.

Your trying to set an absolute standard

I think most people would find your suggestion that The Golden Rule is something that was "first attempted to be set" by me to be silly. You're really going to have to try harder to trick people into thinking that you have a valid point to make, given that the point you're trying to make is in support of hate.

Your the hater.

Stop being ridiculous. I'm vigorously opposing hate that you support. That might embarrass you but that's no excuse for posting ludicrous nonsense like this.

.. the ideal setting and best option for raising a child.

We're not talking about making babies: We're talking about scouting. The "ideal setting" for that involves promoting and affirming the worth and dignity of everyone, not just the people you like.

Your right , we are talking about scouting. In that scouting is where we have kids. Kids who are looking up to their leaders and learning, modeling their lives, growing into adults. This is the time when we are showing our kids the roles of people in our society. If this woman , never gave any indication of her sexual orientation, we all would be fine. Now since she is coming out of the closet and announcing it to the world, you are exposing the kids to a lifestyle that conservative people dont approve of. The BSA is sticking by its policy, no gays as leaders. Yes it sounds harsh if you just say it like that, but there is more to it, then just say we dont want gays. In your alls mind , that is what your thinking. Instead you should be accepting, we dont want our kids exposed to the gay lifestlye. When you look at it like that, then you can see there are different views in this world that need to be respected.

I think most people would find your suggestion that The Golden Rule is something that was "first attempted to be set" by me to be silly. You're really going to have to try harder to trick people into thinking that you have a valid point to make, given that the point you're trying to make is in support of hate.

There is no Golden rule , unless its one of Absolute standard that cant be wavered. Take our laws we abide by daily. They are set by men, in court houses, congress, ect ect.. They would go through rigorous thinking. Ok were going to set the speed limit on this highway at 60 MPH. Its currently 70 MPH but we are finding that going that fast is causing too many accidents, and death. So going slower will reduce that risk. Lets set that standard that going slower , causes less accidents and death. A couple years later, they get back together, and reduce the speed again, now going 55mph would reduce it even more. Another standard has been set. Now maybe there is an increase in deaths, why >? because now were going so slow, road rage is setting in, and people are being careless in passing others. So the laws are changed again to increase the speed back up to 65...

Its a weird and long analogy but my point being is that in mans thinking, a standard in life can be set to what ever they think is best at that time. Over time, that standard is being changed because different people, have different views on life and perspective. If an absolute standard is set, then you always have a point of reference to go back to no matter how lost you become.

Its like always knowing where the north star is and being able to identify it. No matter how lost you get in the woods, if you can remember the sun rises east , sets in the west, and the north star is in X location you can find your way out of anything.

That is life, that is morality.

Stop being ridiculous. I'm vigorously opposing hate that you support. That might embarrass you but that's no excuse for posting ludicrous nonsense like this.

I only use hate, because your tossing it our there unfairly. Your classifying a persons defense of moral standard as hate. Its a shame that your thinking process pushes to you to conclude any thinking process other then your own is a hate against yours. When you can see that people out there want to live their lives by a moral standard that they feel is right, then you will be a real liberal :D

There is another thing to think about here. In our early days as a society people were more same minded. Yes people had some difference, but most americas had the same traditional values. Over time, as we become more diverse with so many other religions from other countries ( something we didnt have hardly any of in our beginning of america ) , more belief systems, more social type groups, ect ect We as a society are becoming so diverse. Eventually I feel this will come to a great clash, because you cant please everyone. Thats a fact. Eventually you have to say Tough, live with it to some one.

If society cant get along, then why dont they just split up and do like the old saying, birds of a feather flock together. If you dont like a group, then dont join it, join your own kind.

Now since she is coming out of the closet and announcing it to the world, you are exposing the kids to a lifestyle that conservative people dont approve of.

She did not annouce her sexual orientation to the scouts in her charge. The BSA has effectively deon that by seeking to spread their hate onto the innocent children they're responsible for.

The BSA is sticking by its policy, no gays as leaders.

We've already gone over this: Setting forth a hateful standard is no excuse for hate.

Instead you should be accepting, we dont want our kids exposed to the gay lifestlye.

This isn't about the gay lifestyle. It is about homosexual orientation. If you don't know the difference, then you're not knowledgeable enough to even have this conversation.

There is no Golden rule, unless its one of Absolute standard that cant be wavered.

Thanks for clarifying the nature of the moral code you live by. Your support for the BSA makes a lot of sense in that context. It also makes it doubly-clear why the BSA's actions are anti-American and that the United States needs to pull the federal charter.

Refraining from doing to others what you would not see have done to you is accepted as a standard for moral behavior by all but those blinded by hatred and thereby seeking rationalization for their hate.

Over time, that standard is being changed because different people, have different views on life and perspective.

More specifically, since roughly 1677, the world has been on a reasonably consistent journey from barbary to civilized behavior. It's not there yet, but progress is steady in the long-range view.

It is true that some folks, like the folks who support the BSA, would prefer to go back to a time where there was less civilized behavior and more barbary - there is no question about that. Their reactionary hate-based antipathy for others shouldn't be granted primacy in any circumstance.

Your classifying a persons defense of moral standard as hate.

Stop lying about my comments. I'm classifying hate as hate. I have moral standards that you almost surely violate every day. But I'm a reasonable and honorable person. I don't take action against you because you violate my religious beliefs. Truly, I only seek to take action against people who are bigoted when they act out on their bigotry, by seeking to impose their beliefs and values on others. Holding to stanrdards within the conduct of your own life, i.e., your own body, your own family, your own home and your own church, is admirable. Actively seeking to take actions against other people based on those standards when those people subscribe to a different set of standards - that's hate.

If society cant get along, then why dont they just split up and do like the old saying, birds of a feather flock together. If you dont like a group, then dont join it, join your own kind.

If you don't like the implications of civilization maturing, then you can leave.

What you like to refer as "civilization maturing", the majority of people sees it as "civilization degenerating".

You spew hate from your mouth like some people breath. You think that if someone does not hold to your belief then they are the hate mongers and bigots. Sorry, but you are wrong and you are on the end of a losing battle. If you don't like it then go to another country to live in, say an eastern country maybe. No, wait, in some eastern countries being a gay person is a death sentence.

The only one here I see who is a bigot is you.........

What you like to refer as "civilization maturing", the majority of people sees it as "civilization degenerating".

Teaching African Americans to read.

Allowing women to vote.

Equal opportunity in education and employment.

(sarcasm) "Oh my! What horrible degeneration!"

You spew hate from your mouth like some people breath.

Stop posting such self-serving nonsense, trying to rationalize your own support for hate by attacking those who oppose such hate.

You think that if someone does not hold to your belief then they are the hate mongers and bigots.

Stop lying about what I think. What I think is that if Person A judges Person B based on Person A's personal beliefs and values instead of based on Person B's personal beliefs and values, then Person A is bigoted. What I think is that if Person A acts out on that bigotry, then Person A is engaging in hate.

Sorry, but you are wrong and you are on the end of a losing battle.

Just like the Abolitionists? Just like the Suffragettes? Just like leaders of the civil rights movement? I'm sure you'll be shocked to know that abolitionist leaders like Theodore Parker, suffragette leaders like Susan B. Anthony, and civil rights leaders like Walter Reuther, were on "my end" of the battle, in opposition to the kind of bigotry and hate that the BSA engages in.

The only one here I see who is a bigot is you.........

More ridiculously pointless self-serving nonsense. Try having a leg to stand on next time you post. Thanks.

What you like to refer as "civilization maturing", the majority of people sees it as "civilization degenerating".

Really? The "majority of people"? You have stats or citations to back that up?

Didn't think so.

Sorry, but you are wrong and you are on the end of a losing battle.

Sure, that's why you bigots are LOSING in the courts when gays challenge current laws, and it's only a matter of time before BSA's policy is challenged yet again, and the previous decision is reversed.

They can challenge all they want, but the BSA does not have to conform to anything. As the BSA has stated, they would disband the BSA before they change their standards. Gays just cant accept that some places, have a standard that doesnt include them. WHy does the BSA have to conform to gay lifestyle ? Huh ? YOu and walt are such hypocrites that you dont even see your own one minded set of views. Yes lets keep harassing the BSA, lets bully them into going against a standard they hold true to.

You all should be ashamed of yourselves, forcing your beliefs on a private, YES PRIVATE erin, I have seen your argument for tax dollars, its weak.. The BSA is private, and can not be forced to do anything.

It wont be changed, Live with it ... or actually, why dont you and the lesbians, go make your own scouts.. Be with like minded people, and some to realize not every thinks like you. Not every has to be like you. How dare you come on here tossing your views on here imposing your beliefs that degrade anothers beliefs. I hate bullies.

WaltUU

What you like to refer as "civilization maturing", the majority of people sees it as "civilization degenerating".

Teaching African Americans to read.

Allowing women to vote.

Equal opportunity in education and employment.

(sarcasm) "Oh my! What horrible degeneration!"

Lets keep on going walt..

Family structure being degraded and ridiculed, that anything is acceptable and ideal for home setting.

Laws made that are taking our God given right to express our religous beliefs in public.

Lets see divorce rates are way out of control a lot higher back when a family setting where we all sat down and enjoyed each others company.

A setting where kids respected their parents, and obeyed their rules but not now a days.

Suicides up, killings up, violence up, SAT scores down, kids today are clueless out there already in the real world. They cant add or subtract, tongue rings hanging out of their mouths, texting in front of me while I am trying to order food. Calling other customers stupid because they werent ready to order their food yet.

I see a great decay in society, its only a matter of time before this entire nation goes into another type of civil war, or some type of rebellion. I just wish more christians stood up and tried to get this nation back together again, and our leaders would show more faith in God and let their morality lead this country.

She did not annouce her sexual orientation to the scouts in her charge. The BSA has effectively deon that by seeking to spread their hate onto the innocent children they're responsible for.

Obviously she did some how. Shes on public news, talking about it. But before all of that, she had to say something about her orientation, else how would they know ? Still no hate here.

We've already gone over this: Setting forth a hateful standard is no excuse for hate.

Yes we have, and still nothing hateful about a standard set and in place long before some other personal standard comes and tries to bully and change it. Which it wont and cant.

This isn't about the gay lifestyle. It is about homosexual orientation. If you don't know the difference, then you're not knowledgeable enough to even have this conversation.

Wow we are really mincing words now. We got this whole word salad going on. Ok BSA has a standard that doesnt feel Gay anything is acceptable for moral leadership.

We set standards for a president of the united states although it seems over time, we slowly have let that degrade.

We set standard for people to get on police force and fire fighting but we lowered the standards for those of minority races because of political pressure, even though they didnt score high enough to pass the standards , mentally, physically and knowledge. Allowing women in fire companies where a certain standards are met, being strong enough to carry heavy equipment, to burst open doors, to fly up steps with equipment that most women can not carry a foot yet alone up stairs. Yet that standard seems pointless because we have to allow for every one.

Even the founding fathers and early life, there were standards to have even to Hold office, and one of those was to confess your belief in God, and your morality by Gods nature. For 140 years it was like that, and now look where we are at Walt.. The attack is now on christians and their values. Your view of hatred, is nothing more then our view of self defense. We are protecting our rights from you all .

There is no Golden rule, unless its one of Absolute standard that cant be wavered.

Thanks for clarifying the nature of the moral code you live by. Your support for the BSA makes a lot of sense in that context. It also makes it doubly-clear why the BSA's actions are anti-American and that the United States needs to pull the federal charter.

Refraining from doing to others what you would not see have done to you is accepted as a standard for moral behavior by all but those blinded by hatred and thereby seeking rationalization for their hate.

my point here is that there is no humanistic Golden rule that man makes, the standard of morality has already been set by God, that is a point of reference to go back to. Man can not set a moral standard because all men have different views.

More specifically, since roughly 1677, the world has been on a reasonably consistent journey from barbary to civilized behavior. It's not there yet, but progress is steady in the long-range view.

It is true that some folks, like the folks who support the BSA, would prefer to go back to a time where there was less civilized behavior and more barbary - there is no question about that. Their reactionary hate-based antipathy for others shouldn't be granted primacy in any circumstance.

Funny , i see it differently. Other then giving some same needed rights to women, blacks, I dont see much of a country going upwards to a utopia. Only thing that has advanced is technology. Everything else is going down the tubes, especially morality and freedoms to our religious beliefs.

Why do you always hear people say , I wish i lived back in the Good ole days. It was a much better and safer america.

Stop lying about my comments. I'm classifying hate as hate. I have moral standards that you almost surely violate every day. But I'm a reasonable and honorable person. I don't take action against you because you violate my religious beliefs. Truly, I only seek to take action against people who are bigoted when they act out on their bigotry, by seeking to impose their beliefs and values on others. Holding to stanrdards within the conduct of your own life, i.e., your own body, your own family, your own home and your own church, is admirable. Actively seeking to take actions against other people based on those standards when those people subscribe to a different set of standards - that's hate.

Im not lying about anything. Your classifying personal , tradtional belief as hate because it wont conform to the liberal movement of todays society. The Gay agenda is being forced on everyone and we all have to accept them, or else its hate. If you truly are reasonable , then you should think about something in your life, that you hold true and value, something that you feel is a standard you live by, and then think about some group out there that comes and tries to infringe on your beliefs, then you tell me how does it feel to have someone tell you how to live your life according to their standards and no longer yours.

If you don't like the implications of civilization maturing, then you can leave.

Honestly , if there was a section of government that did leave and find a new country that was founded by christians and their values and morality I wouldnt think twice of getting out of here. I would have loved to live in our country when it was founded. There was no scare tactics when talking about your faith in God, praying in school, praying before court sessions, having a belief in God was a Good thing, and not ridiculed like it is today. Yes I would love to get away from the Bullying you all do to us, but I cant. So instead I will have to fight for our freedoms of tradition, and defend this once great america from the attacks of people who want to force their belief system on organization that have rights, and myself who has rights.

Family structure being degraded and ridiculed, that anything is acceptable and ideal for home setting.

(sarcasm) Indeed: Asians starting families with African Americans... how can we allow such a thing!?!?

Laws made that are taking our God given right to express our religous beliefs in public.

Moral people express our religious beliefs in the conduct of our own life: What we do with our own body; what we do with regard to our own family; what we do with regard to our own home; what we do with regard to our own church. How we treat others. How we spend our money. How we express compassion.

Moral people don't express their religious beliefs through the imposition of those religious beliefs onto the lives of others. Moral people don't try to inject their beliefs into someone else's home, into someone else's family, into someone else's church. Moral people respect the right of other people to live their lives in accordance with their own beliefs as much as those moral people seek to live their lives in accordance with their own beliefs.

Lets see divorce rates are way out of control a lot higher back when a family setting where we all sat down and enjoyed each others company.

You're advocating against the Industrial Revolution. Noted. Find another thread to have your Ludditefest.

A setting where kids respected their parents, and obeyed their rules but not now a days.

Given how much what you advocate for is disrespect for others, why do you think you even remotely deserve the respect of your children? Children learn what they live.

Suicides up, killings up, violence up, SAT scores down, kids today are clueless out there already in the real world.

Almost all attributable in some way to the kind of hate that you support with your support of the BSA. You beat your chest about the maladies but refuse to admit your perspective plays a far greater role in causing such things that that which you hate.

I just wish more christians stood up and tried to get this nation back together again, and our leaders would show more faith in God and let their morality lead this country.

What you're talking about isn't morality, but rather the opposite: It is exactly the same thing a lot of citizens of the Confederacy used to justify their rebellion against the union - to defend their way of life which included enslaving people due to their racial background. We climbed out of that muck a century and half ago. Most of us don't view that quagmire of hate to be the kind of luxurious hot tub you're trying to make it out to be.

Obviously she did some how.

So you admit that you write from a position of ignorance.

No she did NOT announce her sexual orientation to the scouts in her charge. You're wrong.

Shes on public news, talking about it.

We all have a right to live our lives in accordance with our own beliefs without being subjected to hate. I make donations to women's shelters, and speak out in the press sometimes about domestic abuse - should that disqualify me from being a Little League coach? Of course not. I wouldn't bring up those matters in the context of coaching boys playing baseball (since it would be inappropriate to inject that irrelevant matter into the Little League situation). The fact that my life includes this other interest, besides Little League, shouldn't be relevant to Little League.

Still no hate here.

More pointless denial of reality on your part.

Yes we have, and still nothing hateful about a standard set and in place long before some other personal standard comes and tries to bully and change it.

Setting forth a hateful standard is no excuse for hate. Opposing hate is not bullying; it is true morality (as contrasted with what you were trying to label as morality earlier).

Wow we are really mincing words now. We got this whole word salad going on.

Stop trying to hide your refusal to grant the distinction behind such self-serving mental masturbation. This isn't about the gay lifestyle. It is about homosexual orientation. Now: If you are incapable or unwilling to acknowledge the difference, then you're not honorable enough to even have this conversation.

Ok BSA has a standard that doesnt feel Gay anything is acceptable for moral leadership.

Since scouting does not involve sex, sexual orientation is completely irrelevant to scouting, not a positive, and not a negative. The only basis for a standard to the contrary is hate. You have repeatedly failed to elaborate any alternative rational explanation for the standard. and the actions of the BSA, and much of your own rhetoric that mirrors that of other BSA supporters, underscores the hateful nature of that which you're putting forth as the standard.

We set standards for a president of the united states although it seems over time, we slowly have let that degrade.

(sarcasm) Indeed, they even let Black men become President now.

We set standard for people to get on police force and fire fighting but we lowered the standards for those of minority races because of political pressure, even though they didnt score high enough to pass the standards , mentally, physically and knowledge.

And you conveniently forget most of the reasons why those accommodations were made. You unsurprisingly remember the one reason that doesn't stand on its own, but the reasons that serve society as a whole have magically vanished from your brain. How incredibly convenient. What's next after your advocacy for the BSA? Perhaps you're going to advocate in defense of Rafael Perez and the rest of the Rampart Division CRASH unit?

Even the founding fathers and early life, there were standards to have even to Hold office, and one of those was to confess your belief in God, and your morality by Gods nature.

Don't despoil the memory of the founders with your offensively reactionary corruption of the reality of their works. Our founders were revolutionaries. Each of them, in their own way, was a vanguard of change; a leader of society further into the modern age. Some of the founders were born into families that saw nothing remarkable about enslaving people of other races, and went on to grow in morality so far as to oppose slavery - a one hundred and eighty degree turn from immorality to morality within their lifetime. Some of the founders were born into religious perspectives involving subjugation of personal will to corrupt religious hierarchies, and within their own lifetimes became leaders in religious movements built on the foundation of personal revelation. Don't think for a minute that our founders were in any way aligned with your apparent desire to turn back progress to that time in your life when you were most secure and happy. They were far braver than that.

The attack is now on christians and their values.

Wrong. The attack is on hate.

Christians have always progressed over time. You would not recognize the first Christians as Christians, nor would you see yourself living as the fifth century Christians lived, as the tenth century Christians lived, nor as the fifteenth century Christians lived. The problem you're detecting stems not from any attack on Christianity but rather on how some portion of Christendom trying to exert personal control over the path of progress, a path that has been operating for almost two thousands years prior to their birth. It's like getting on the train at the ninth stop and then expecting to dictate through your own base desires where the track ahead should already have been placed - no - even worse - it's like getting on the train at the ninth stop and then expecting to dictate that the train waits in the station until you choose to get off, rather than progressing to the next stop on schedule, because you don't like the feeling of a train moving. Some people would prefer to see all humanity's efforts going into building beautiful waiting rooms at the station that they got on the train instead of letting a train be a train, and allowing humanity's efforts go into making sure the track ahead is strong and clear of obstacles.

Your view of hatred, is nothing more then our view of self defense.

Yes, I do accept that the hatred inherent in defending the BSA's position does indeed stem from the fear supporters feel with regard to not being able to exert control over others, as they wish to.

We are protecting our rights from you all .

Wrong: You don't have the right to impose your beliefs and values on others. You don't like homosexuality? Then don't be one (if you can manage that). That is the extent of your "rights" in this regard. Once you leave the confines of your own body, family, home and church, you're in the public arena, and your rights regarding your own beliefs and values don't prevail there. Instead, what prevails there is the right of everyone to live in accordance with their own beliefs and values, all enjoying society's opportunities and offerings equally.

my point here is that there is no humanistic Golden rule that man makes, the standard of morality has already been set by God, that is a point of reference to go back to.

Who's God? Yours? That's the sin of hubris, even by the most reactionary view of Christianity. The Golden Rule serves because it is the only rational arbiter between reasonable people disagreeing about God's moral standard.

Man can not set a moral standard because all men have different views.

And you cannot dictate what God's moral standard is because all people have different views of God's law. If you want respect for living your life in accordance with your understanding of God, then you had better show such respect to others living their lives in accordance with their understanding of God.

Funny , i see it differently. Other then giving some same needed rights to women, blacks, I dont see much of a country going upwards to a utopia.

Oppressors rarely see a reduction in oppression as a personal bonus. So if you're a white male landowner, I suppose you could see the last few hundred years as troubling. That doesn't make your personal antipathy for the progress from barbary to civilization as anything other than what it is: Improvement for society overall.

Everything else is going down the tubes, especially morality and freedoms to our religious beliefs.

From what you've written, the only way you measure morality is the extent to which other people kowtow to your whims. That's not a reasonable manner to measure whether things are getting better or worse overall.

Why do you always hear people say , I wish i lived back in the Good ole days.

Because humans fear death and that fear makes them long for childhood, no matter how much worse society was back then. However, that's a whole 'nother discussion.

Im not lying about anything.

You lied about my comments. Don't compound the error by denying it. I've corrected you. You cannot claim to be confused about what I'm saying after I've very clearly elaborated what I'm saying.

Your classifying personal , tradtional belief as hate because it wont conform to the liberal movement of todays society.

False. You have again lied about what I've written. Stop lying about what I'm saying. Lying about what I've said isn't going to make your points sound any more credible.

Again, I'm not classifying belief as anything (other than something that you have an absolute right to hold). I'm classifying acting on beliefs based on antipathy for people because they don't subjugate themselves to your beliefs.

The Gay agenda is being forced on everyone and we all have to accept them, or else its hate.

There is no "Gay agenda" other than what we all expect: To be able to live our lives in accordance with our own beliefs and values. You go to church on Sunday. Do you want your right to engage in that activity to be respected? Of course. You get married in a church, and your marriage is sanctified through the auspices of your chosen church. Do you want that respected? Of course. You consider the children God "gives" you to be blessings. Do you want that respected? Of course. All these aspects of your life that are shaped by your chosen religion - you expect respect for them. Every aspect of your life that you expect respect for - well you are obligated to show that same respect to others. That is morality, not anything other than that.

If you truly are reasonable , then you should think about something in your life, that you hold true and value, something that you feel is a standard you live by, and then think about some group out there that comes and tries to infringe on your beliefs, then you tell me how does it feel to have someone tell you how to live your life according to their standards and no longer yours.

Now take what you wrote here and apply it to your contention that a gay scout or gay scoutmaster should be excluded from BSA. If you cannot see how you've utterly discredited your advocacy for BSA's hateful policies, then there really is nothing more I can say to help you understand your error in that regard.

Honestly , if there was a section of government that did leave and find a new country that was founded by christians and their values and morality I wouldnt think twice of getting out of here.

First of all, this nation was founded by people of my religion, not fundamentalist Christians. As I pointed out, my people were revolutionaries, forward-looking, and not reactionary at all.

I would have loved to live in our country when it was founded.

In the context of this discussion we've been having, you've placed yourself among those who opposed the religious freedom that our nation's founders came here to seek.

There was no scare tactics when talking about your faith in God, praying in school, praying before court sessions, having a belief in God was a Good thing, and not ridiculed like it is today.

Much of what you're talking about there was actually revolutionary for that time, a reflection of the natural progression from the barbary of the time - strong and steady progression that has continued to this day despite your desire to freeze American in that one point in time.

Yes I would love to get away from the Bullying you all do to us, but I cant.

Opposing hate is not bullying.

So instead I will have to fight for our freedoms of tradition, and defend this once great america from the attacks of people who want to force their belief system on organization that have rights, and myself who has rights.

There is no freedom to impose what you consider tradition on others. You are perfectly free to engage in your tradition within your own body, family, home and church. Society, by contrast, is something you share with others.

Organizations don't have rights. People have rights. There is no right to live free from interactions with people who are different from you. And there is no right to practice hate. Laws in some states may not punish transgressions in that regard, because of how many people in those states hold so strongly to hateful perspectives, but that's not the same as a right to practice hate. And it surely doesn't constitute a right to practice hate in states where such hate is prohibited, nor does it constitute a right to retain a federal charter in light of the practice of such hate.

Even the founding fathers and early life, there were standards to have even to Hold office, and one of those was to confess your belief in God, and your morality by Gods nature.

So perhaps you can explain why, if one was required to "confess...belief in God," this was included in the Constitution -- NOT as an Amendment, but as an Article of the Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 3, in fact):

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause

We are protecting our rights from you all .

What rights of yours are being denied or will be denied if the BSA is forced to allow gays to join? Don't say that it is your right to publicly observe your religion, because that right has NEVER been denied to you; only your "right" to have the rest of us taxpayers FUND your observances has been taken away, because that was never a "right" to begin with -- it was just something that you christo-bigots got away with for years, until someone was finally smart to enough to start challenging such abuses of power.

It is very telling that, of all of the Boy Scout organizations worldwide, apparently the ONLY one that denies membership to gays is the one in the US.

Wrong: You don't have the right to impose your beliefs and values on others. You don't like homosexuality? Then don't be one (if you can manage that). That is the extent of your "rights" in this regard. Once you leave the confines of your own body, family, home and church, you're in the public arena, and your rights regarding your own beliefs and values don't prevail there. Instead, what prevails there is the right of everyone to live in accordance with their own beliefs and values, all enjoying society's opportunities and offerings equally.

I can use that too., Dont like the BSA , dont join .. pretty simple, dont go there forcing them to beleive something they have the right to keep out of their group. that simple

Im saying in our early days the states consitution , if you had a position , you had to have a belief in God.

IM well aware that the state is different from our federal constitution, but my point being is that the belief of God was strong back then. It did influence our fathers, we were a nation built on christian values and principles, our first Chief of justice John jay declared that himself that this was a christian nation and that people in office should have a belief in God. Who would know the constitution better then these guys of the past than we do today. It was drafted just a couple years before he took office. If his remark was outrageous it would had been attacked by those of his time. He is not the only one , and the courts of that time , our history for the first 140 years had no issues with God included in it. Its only today in the last 70 ish years that we , our leaders now are changing everything and trying to re interpret it all with this so called wall of seperation, which doesnt even exist. Well I take that back it does exist in the terms of being a one way wall only. The government not interfering with religion, not the other way around.

What rights of yours are being denied or will be denied if the BSA is forced to allow gays to join? Don't say that it is your right to publicly observe your religion, because that right has NEVER been denied to you; only your "right" to have the rest of us taxpayers FUND your observances has been taken away, because that was never a "right" to begin with -- it was just something that you christo-bigots got away with for years, until someone was finally smart to enough to start challenging such abuses of power.

tax paying funds for what ? Your not paying for the BSA. They have the right to do what they want. If they were so called being funded, you would see the federal government doing something immediately, but as you can see, there is nothing being done. Yes I understand that the Government did allow the BSA do some stuff on their property, and also did help with funding for some annual event, but this isnt taking place anymore as i know, and any ties the government did have, doesnt seem to be there now. In truth the BSA is private and they can abide by they can abide by what ever rules they want to set.

As i said before , why force a group to accept something they dont want .. You force your kids to sleep in the dark if they were scared of the dark as little kids ?

Why try to be part of an organization that doesnt want you to be there ? You think I would be accepted into the Black panthers ? Even if they were forced to accept me, you think I would want to be there with them, knowing they dont want me there, and dont like me because I am white ?

Why would I put myself through that ? Why would I want to infringe upon their right of be blacks only ?

Why should gays want to be part of a group that just doesnt want them there ?

If i was being bullied in school, why would I want to try to hang out with the bullies ? If i was being made fun of by a group of girls, why would I want to try to hang out and ask them out on a date ?

BSA has a moral obligation, they stand for that. This isnt hate, as i said it was in place LONG before this liberal gay agenda movement is sweeping over the nation. BSA has the right, a right that has been in place LONG before us, and all this gay agenda stuff. You all disgust me how you want to try to force people to accept something they dont want to be part of.

Dont like the BSA , dont join

It doesn't fly because the BSA has a federal charter, and its members received substantive considerations from federal entities. You know this but continually keep forgetting, hoping that you can brow-beat others into buying into your rationalisation for hate. You can't. Until the BSA relinquishes its federal charter and all the benefits thereof, you don't have a leg to stand on in this regard.

Im saying in our early days the states consitution , if you had a position , you had to have a belief in God.

And I'm saying that in our early days, beliefs and values were different than the generation before - "liberal" in your words, in the context of the day - and that progress toward greater liberty and justice for all continues to this day.

IM well aware that the state is different from our federal constitution, but my point being is that the belief of God was strong back then.

Not according to the reactionaries of the day. That's the point you keep missing. You don't realize that you've put yourself in the position of idolater after Abraham - in the position of Papist after the Reformation - in the position of Tory after the establishment of congregational churches throughout the colonies. You mistakenly equate "old belief" with "strong belief" instead of what it truly is: A very weak belief because it is justification rests on an assertion of power instead of on ongoing contemporary revelation, and on the principle of ever-increasing appreciation of the worth and value of all people.

And beyond that, your presumption that people who disagree with you about homosexuality are any less Godly than you is nothing more than the sin of hubris. The most religious man I know is a homosexual minister. And he'll school you far better than I can about why your interpretation of the Bible is simply wrong. And since his belief system encompasses more love and compassion than yours (since his includes respect for you while yours includes disrespect for him), he clearly "has God right" far more than you do. Indeed, I contend that my belief in God is far "stronger" than yours, if you insist that your antipathy for homosexuals is justified by your belief in God.

It did influence our fathers, we were a nation built on christian values and principles, our first Chief of justice John jay declared that himself that this was a christian nation and that people in office should have a belief in God.

The Treaty of Tripoli, a legal document signed in 1797 by the US President and ratified unanimously by the US Senate, said, "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion ... " So even if your John Jay quote meant what you tried to imply it did (it didn't - John Jay didn't say that people in office should necessarily be Christian, and furthermore, the Christianity of the day included many people, including many of our nation's founders, that would find your brand of Christianity rather foolish, but that's neither here nor there...), it was a personal statement of one person, while what I quoted was the official policy of the United State, with full agreement (when was the last time the US Senate passed something important "unanimously"?) of the people's trustees.

The government not interfering with religion, not the other way around.

Granting a federal charter to an organization that imposes its leaders' religious beliefs on others is government interfering with religion. It is the government interfering in the religion of the employees and program participants.

BSA has a moral obligation, they stand for that.

BSA isn't fulfilling a moral obligation; they're denying one; what they're fulfilling is their intention to promulgate hate.

You all disgust me how you want to try to force people to accept something they dont want to be part of.

Your self-serving claptrap notwithstanding, expecting people to treat others fairly and justly in commerce and public accommodation stems from an expectation that adults act maturely and responsibly when interacting with others. What "disgusts" me is your making excuses for the BSA seeking to avoid doing so.

It doesn't fly because the BSA has a federal charter,

Doesnt mean anything, its like an honorary title. It doesnt make BSA bound to any federal regulations. Nice try though.

Those who advance the notion that this was the belief system of the Founders often publish information attempting to prove that the Founders were irreligious. One of the quotes they set forth is the following:

The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion. GEORGE WASHINGTON

The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli is the source of Washington's supposed statement. Is this statement accurate? Did this prominent Founder truly repudiate religion? An answer will be found by an examination of its source. That treaty, one of several with Tripoli, was negotiated during the "Barbary Powers Conflict," which began shortly after the Revolutionary War and continued through the Presidencies of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. The Muslim Barbary Powers (Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, and Tripoli) were warring against what they claimed to be the "Christian" nations (England, France, Spain, Denmark, and the United States). In 1801, Tripoli even declared war against the United States, thus constituting America's first official war as an established independent nation.

Throughout this long conflict, the four Barbary Powers regularly attacked undefended American merchant ships. Not only were their cargoes easy prey but the Barbary Powers were also capturing and enslaving "Christian" seamen in retaliation for what had been done to them by the "Christians" of previous centuries (e.g., the Crusades and Ferdinand and Isabella's expulsion of Muslims from Granada ). In an attempt to secure a release of captured seamen and a guarantee of unmolested shipping in the Mediterranean, President Washington dispatched envoys to negotiate treaties with the Barbary nations. (Concurrently, he encouraged the construction of American naval warships to defend the shipping and confront the Barbary "pirates" – a plan not seriously pursued until President John Adams created a separate Department of the Navy in 1798.)

The American envoys negotiated numerous treaties of "Peace and Amity" with the Muslim Barbary nations to ensure "protection" of American commercial ships sailing in the Mediterranean. However, the terms of the treaty frequently were unfavorable to America, either requiring her to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of "tribute" (i.e., official extortion) to each country to receive a "guarantee" of safety or to offer other "considerations" (e.g., providing a warship as a "gift" to Tripoli, a "gift" frigate to Algiers, paying $525,000 to ransom captured American seamen from Algiers,etc. ). The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was one of the many treaties in which each country officially recognized the religion of the other in an attempt to prevent further escalation of a "Holy War" between Christians and Muslims. Consequently, Article XI of that treaty stated:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This article may be read in two manners. It may, as its critics do, be concluded after the clause "Christian religion"; or it may be read in its entirety and concluded when the punctuation so indicates. But even if shortened and cut abruptly ("the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"), this is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government.

Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation, they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation.

Reading the clause of the treaty in its entirety also fails to weaken this fact. Article XI simply distinguished America from those historical strains of European Christianity which held an inherent hatred of Muslims; it simply assured the Muslims that the United States was not a Christian nation like those of previous centuries (with whose practices the Muslims were very familiar) and thus would not undertake a religious holy war against them.

This latter reading is, in fact, supported by the attitude prevalent among numerous American leaders. The Christianity practiced in America was described by John Jay as "wise and virtuous," ²⁰ by John Quincy Adams as "civilized," and by John Adams as "rational." A clear distinction was drawn between American Christianity and that of Europe in earlier centuries. As Noah Webster explained:

The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it.

Daniel Webster similarly explained that American Christianity was:

Christianity to which the sword and the fagot [burning stake or hot branding iron] are unknown – general tolerant Christianity is the law of the land!

Those who attribute the Treaty of Tripoli quote to George Washington make two mistakes. The first is that no statement in it can be attributed to Washington (the treaty did not arrive in America until months after he left office); Washington never saw the treaty; it was not his work; no statement in it can be ascribed to him. The second mistake is to divorce a single clause of the treaty from the remainder which provides its context. It would also be absurd to suggest that President Adams (under whom the treaty was ratified in 1797) would have endorsed or assented to any provision which repudiated Christianity. In fact, while discussing the Barbary conflict with Jefferson, Adams declared:

The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours.

Furthermore, it was Adams who declared:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.

Adams' own words confirm that he rejected any notion that America was less than a Christian nation.

Additionally, the writings of General William Eaton, a major figure in the Barbary Powers conflict, provide even more irrefutable testimony of how the conflict was viewed at that time. Eaton was first appointed by President John Adams as "Consul to Tunis," and President Thomas Jefferson later advanced him to the position of "U. S. Naval Agent to the Barbary States," authorizing him to lead a military expedition against Tripoli. Eaton's official correspondence during his service confirms that the conflict was a Muslim war against a Christian America.

For example, when writing to Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, Eaton apprised him of why the Muslims would be such dedicated foes:

Taught by revelation that war with the Christians will guarantee the salvation of their souls, and finding so great secular advantages in the observance of this religious duty [the secular advantage of keeping captured cargoes], their [the Muslims'] inducements to desperate fighting are very powerful.

Eaton later complained that after Jefferson had approved his plan for military action, he sent him the obsolete warship "Hero." Eaton reported the impression of America made upon the Tunis Muslims when they saw the old warship and its few cannons:

[T]he weak, the crazy situation of the vessel and equipage [armaments] tended to confirm an opinion long since conceived and never fairly controverted among the Tunisians, that the Americans are a feeble sect of Christians.

In a later letter to Pickering, Eaton reported how pleased one Barbary ruler had been when he received the extortion compensations from America which had been promised him in one of the treaties:

He said, "To speak truly and candidly . . . . we must acknowledge to you that we have never received articles of the kind of so excellent a quality from any Christian nation."

When John Marshall became the new Secretary of State, Eaton informed him:

It is a maxim of the Barbary States, that "The Christians who would be on good terms with them must fight well or pay well."

And when General Eaton finally commenced his military action against Tripoli, his personal journal noted:

April 8th. We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Musselmen. We have a difficult undertaking!

May 23rd. Hassien Bey, the commander in chief of the enemy's forces, has offered by private insinuation for my head six thousand dollars and double the sum for me a prisoner; and $30 per head for Christians. Why don't he come and take it?

Shortly after the military excursion against Tripoli was successfully terminated, its account was written and published. Even the title of the book bears witness to the nature of the conflict:

The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton . . . commander of the Christian and Other Forces . . . which Led to the Treaty of Peace Between The United States and The Regency of Tripoli

The numerous documents surrounding the Barbary Powers Conflict confirm that historically it was always viewed as a conflict between Christian America and Muslim nations. Those documents completely disprove the notion that any founding President, especially Washington, ever declared that America was not a Christian nation or people.

Your self-serving claptrap notwithstanding, expecting people to treat others fairly and justly in commerce and public accommodation stems from an expectation that adults act maturely and responsibly when interacting with others. What "disgusts" me is your making excuses for the BSA seeking to avoid doing so.

My clap trap , has to speak up, because myself and people like the BSA are tired of being pushed around and trying to conform to this newly world view, political correctness of liberal sensationalism .

I cant state this enough, the BSA and its system of beliefs, being morality, rules and regulations were well in place before all this Liberal forcing. And then before the BSA and even this country being founded, the morality that the BSA lives by is that of the Nature of God above. BSA IS actions maturely, they are trying to defend themselves from the wild attacks from the wolves of political correctness liberalism.

Also as i said before, IF the BSA was bound by any federal laws, then action would have already been taken, and you also would not have seen the president of the BSA or who ever that was, who said, we will disband before we change our views. So no one is going to force them. Dont like it ? Tough, thats life, you cant please everyone, thats also life. Pleasing one group, disgruntles someone else, thats life. There are times when you just move on and put it behind you.

I wish you would because nothing you say on here is going to convince me that hate has anything to do with it. The hate I see , is coming from the other side, hate that they cant change something. Hate that they cant show off by conquering another social group of people. People who have the right to stand by their belief of Heterosexual in leadership.

Doesnt mean anything, its like an honorary title.

Wrong on two accounts: First it does mean something. Otherwise, the BSA would simply relinquish it to avoid what would be from their perspective (if you were correct) pointless criticism and negative attention stemming from something that is of no value to them. You're wrong: They do care about their federal charter. It does mean something. And furthermore, honor matters. Honor always matters. The fact that you put in one sentence the assertion that honor doesn't matter is deeply, deeply disturbing. I didn't think you were that extreme in your view.

Second, BSA's federal charter is the basis used for showing Eagle Scouts favoritism on entry into the armed forces.

It doesnt make BSA bound to any federal regulations.

The BSA is bound to federal regulations right-and-left. They are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, etc. The only issue here is that federal regulations don't adequately protect all the groups that are regularly subjected to unjust discrimination in our society, so that allows the BSA to practice their hate against those groups with impunity. That's the objection here - that the BSA is essentially using a loop-hole to practice hate. That's not the kind of behavior that warrants honor or privileges.

There is also an open issue here with regard to how the BSA will handle the Massachusetts Councils' inevitable rejection of this policy. The Massachusetts Councils actually have to do so - it's the law here in the Commonwealth. The spirit of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution would dictate that the BSA would not be allowed to take action against a subsidiary for complying with state law. It is possible, though, that the BSA will seek to use the exclusions typically afforded groups with federal charters (e.g., such exclusions explain why the NFL is exempted from anti-trust laws) to excuse its actions against local councils that reject its national policy due to local laws or local community standards. Remember, even though federal law does not yet provide protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, there has never been a law, federal or state, that protects the right to discriminate. Discrimination has always been framed in terms of what is protected from discrimination.

Adams' own words confirm that he rejected any notion that America was less than a Christian nation.

John Adams, one our most prominent founders, was a member of my religion, not yours. You don't know what the founders' beliefs and values would be projected into the modern day, because you clearly don't even recognize who they were and what they believed then.

A congressional charter is a law passed by the United States Congress that states the mission, authority and activities of a group. Congress issued federal charters from 1791 until 1992 under Title 36 of the United States Code.

The relationship between Congress and the organization is largely a symbolic honorific giving the organization the aura of being "officially" sanctioned by the U.S. government. However, Congress does not oversee or supervise organizations with the charter (other than receiving a yearly financial statement). Amid dissatisfaction with the system, the subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee decided not to consider applications for further charters in 1992, though several were still granted thereafter.^[1]

Eligibility for a charter is based on a group’s activities, whether they are unique, and whether or not they are in the public interest. If this is the case, a bill to grant a charter is introduced in Congress and must be voted into law.

There have been questions about the federal government’s power to manage corporations who have received a charter.^[2] Because of questions on who is responsible for the activities of these entities, the issuance of charters was officially stopped in 1992, though some exceptions have been made. The granting of a charter does not include congressional oversight.^[3]

is largely a symbolic honorific , -- As I said, it was a symbol of honor.

officially" sanctioned by the U.S. government, my point is Sanctioned, not funded BIG difference, and lets look what sanction means..

sanctioned Give official permission or approval for (an action)

Verb

Process

Eligibility for a charter is based on a group’s activities, whether they are unique, and whether or not they are in the public interest. If this is the case, a bill to grant a charter is introduced in Congress and must be voted into law.

There have been questions about the federal government’s power to manage corporations who have received a charter.^[2] Because of questions on who is responsible for the activities of these entities, the issuance of charters was officially stopped in 1992, though some exceptions have been made. The granting of a charter does not include congressional oversight.^[3]

^{You see, it was stopped because the Government knows they have no power what so ever over someone who has a charter. A charter means nothing in the terms of control, just an honorary thing, like getting your 12 degree in Black belt.}

^{So as you can see, you can drop the false idea of the BSA being bound to any one or anything in relation to the government. You may not like it, but the BSA is going to keep on doing what they and so many others stand for and believe in. Thank God for people who still stand for their rights to have a choice in morality and biblical beliefs.}

So as you can see, you can drop the false idea of the BSA being bound to any one or anything in relation to the government.

That is ridiculous. As I pointed out in my message, every organization is bound to the government with regard to whatever laws on the books apply to them. I specifically mentioned how the BSA is obligated to comply with federal anti-discrimination law, and will still be obligated to do so when it is expanded to include protection on the basis of sexual orientation.

Also, as I pointed out in my message, the BSA policy violates the laws of the Commonwealth, and actions taken by the BSA to enforce its policy within the Commonwealth, including national actions that result in local discrimination will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, without any regard for the fact that it is a national policy.

Furthermore, your totally irrelevant diatribe was clearly intended to make it seem like you were refuting something I said, even though nothing you wrote there actually refuted one bit of the points I made in my last message. So I have to conclude that you really have run out of relevant rebuttals and have switch to just throwing bs at people to try to make it seem like you have a point. I'll remind you of what I wrote that you decided to overlook:

The federal charter does mean something to the BSA, otherwise they would simply relinquish it to avoid what would be from their perspective (if you were correct) pointless criticism and negative attention stemming from something that is of no value to them. Furthermore, honor always matters. Also, the unjust nature of the federal charter is seen in the fact that the BSA's federal charter is the basis used for showing Eagle Scouts favoritism on entry into the armed forces.

You may not like it, but the BSA is going to keep on doing what they and so many others stand for and believe in.

So you hope. AFAIC, you may not like it, but the BSA is going to have to mature into respecting the beliefs and values of others or face losing its federal charter, and/or having the BSA itself splinter into councils that insist on practicing hate and councils that pledge not to.

As i said before walt, IF the BSA was bound by all the things you said above, then we would be seeing lots of headlines about lawsuits, and the government intervening. Last i seen, nothing is happening, so guess the BSA will get to keep their rights, and not be prosecuted for their God given right to freely choose to stand behind morality of God.

The have ot defend against the people who hate against them because they will not cave into the liberal PC of todays society.. I am impressed with their stance, and they will keep on standing on their truth and morality.

Until there are headlines from the government courts saying the BSA is in violation of anything , this subject matter is closed.

BSA wins, liberals go find your own group of same like minded individuals.

You won't see lawsuits until either the BSA tries to enforce its policies in councils in states which already have just laws. Hate is not yet against the law everywhere. If you don't see anything "happening" then you're not paying attention to what the councils in states with just laws are working through.

The "subject matter" will never be closed as long as a federally-chartered organization is engaging in hate: the work goes on, the cause endures, etc.

The hate does go on, the hate of people trying to force a private organization to accept something they dont want. Thats the only hate I see. Get off your high horse, and stop bullying people into accepting something they dont want. I cant stand bullies.

"Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. The conduct of youth members must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law, and membership in Boy Scouts of America is contingent upon the willingness to accept Scouting’s values and beliefs.

BSALegal.org published these policies until February 2010, when it was removed from their website.^[27] In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale that Boy Scouts, and all private organizations, have the constitutionally protected right under the First Amendment of freedom of association to set membership standards.^[28]

It reversed a decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court that had determined that New Jersey's public accommodations law required the BSA to readmit assistant Scoutmaster James Dale, who had made his homosexuality public and whom the BSA had expelled from the organization.

^{There you go ..}

^{Now leave the Boy scouts alone you bully.}

The decidion from the supreme court was based off of this case

Chief Justice William Rehnquist's majority opinion relied upon Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 622 (1984), in which the Supreme Court said: "Consequently, we have long understood as implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends." This right, the Roberts decision continues, is crucial in preventing the majority from imposing its views on groups that would rather express other, perhaps unpopular, ideas. Government actions that may unconstitutionally burden this freedom may take many forms, one of which is "intrusion into the internal structure or affairs of an association" like a "regulation that forces the group to accept members it does not desire." Forcing a group to accept certain members may impair the ability of the group to express those views, and only those views, that it intends to express. Thus, "freedom of association ... plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate."

However, to determine whether a group is protected by the First Amendment's expressive associational right, it must first be determined whether the group engages in "expressive association." After reviewing the Scout Promise and Scout Law the court decided that the general mission of the Boy Scouts is clear: "[T]o instill values in young people."^[9] The Boy Scouts seek to instill these values by having its adult leaders spend time with the youth members, instructing and engaging them in activities like camping, fishing, etc. During the time spent with the youth members, the Scoutmasters and assistant Scoutmasters inculcate them with the Boy Scouts' values—both expressly and by example. An association that seeks to transmit such a system of values engages in expressive activity.

• First, associations do not have to associate for the "purpose" of disseminating a certain message in order to be entitled to the protections of the First Amendment. An association must merely engage in expressive activity that could be impaired in order to be entitled to protection.
• Second, even if the Boy Scouts discourages Scout leaders from disseminating views on sexual issues, the First Amendment protects the Boy Scouts' method of expression. If the Boy Scouts wishes Scout leaders to avoid questions of sexuality and teach only by example, this fact does not negate the sincerity of its belief discussed above.
• Regarding whether the Boy Scouts as a whole had an expressive policy against homosexuality, the Court gave deference to the organization's own assertions of the nature of its expressions, as well as what would impair them. The Boy Scouts asserts that it "teach[es] that homosexual conduct is not morally straight," and that it does "not want to promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior,"^[10] While the policy may not represent the views of all Boy Scouts, the First Amendment "does not require that every member of a group agree on every issue in order for the group's policy to be expressive association."^[11] The Court deemed it sufficient that the Boy Scouts had taken an official position with respect to same-sex relationships. The presence of an openly gay activist in an assistant Scoutmaster's uniform sends a distinctly different message from the presence of a heterosexual assistant Scoutmaster who is on record as disagreeing with Boy Scouts policy. The Boy Scouts has a First Amendment right to choose to send one message but not the other. The fact that the organization does not trumpet its views from the housetops, or that it tolerates dissent within its ranks, does not mean that its views receive no First Amendment protection.^[12]

The decision concluded:

We are not, as we must not be, guided by our views of whether the Boy Scouts' teachings with respect to homosexual conduct are right or wrong; public or judicial disapproval of a tenet of an organization's expression does not justify the State's effort to compel the organization to accept members where such acceptance would derogate from the organization's expressive message. While the law is free to promote all sorts of conduct in place of harmful behavior, it is not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one, however enlightened either purpose may strike the government.^[13]

The hate does go on, the hate of people trying to force a private organization to accept something they dont want.

Stop with the self-stroking nonsense: Opposing hate is not hate.

Thats the only hate I see.

That's the problems: First that you see fit to lie to yourself about what is and is not hate, and that all you can see is that which supports your own indefensible position.

Get off your high horse, and stop bullying people into accepting something they dont want. I cant stand bullies.

There is no bullying coming from our side. We're opposing hate. We're promoting the worth and value of every person, not just the people you like. We're supporting a fair and just society for all, instead of that which you are supporting, a reactionary vision where bigotry is cosseted.

There is no bullying coming from our side. We're opposing hate. We're promoting the worth and value of every person, not just the people you like.

Yes your promoting hate by forcing a private organization to have to accept something they find morally wrong. That is intolerance and dis respecting their rights. How would it be if heteros tried to get into the LGBT and started messing with their policies and standards ?

Its not a not that you hate them, its that you hate that people are different from you. Not everyone is like you, nor do they need to be.

I only use hate, but your using it. If you would stop using the word hate instead of tossing it in there nonsensically and just accept the fact that people can and do have moral standards in this country that are not subject to change because of their rights being protected by our First Amendment . Now we have this huge political liberal movement that is trying to change American's and their right.

So if what I say isnt good enough, just go back up and reread what the courts said. They know themselves that they dont have the right to impose on the BSA because they know that it is a right to have. It is what makes america , America.. When people like you come and try to take that away, your taking away a piece of our history and why we came here for our freedoms and not have people force their agenda's and their ideals on other people.

As i said before, dont like , dont join. They should make their own BSA and stop bullying the current one. Its that simple.

Yes your promoting hate by forcing a private organization to have to accept something they find morally wrong. That is intolerance and dis respecting their rights.

Wrong again. We're opposing hate - opposing hate is not hate. BSA having an immoral "moral" standard is no excuse for the hate it commits.

How would it be if heteros tried to get into the LGBT and started messing with their policies and standards ?

I'm heterosexual, and I'm welcome to support fairness and justice for LGBTs. So are you - stop supporting hate and join us.

I only use hate, but your using it. If you would stop using the word hate

Thank you for admitting that you're essentially lying in your message in reaction to the mortification you feel about being associated with a group that commits hate.

To answer your attempt to oppress my perspective, no I won't lie, I won't stop calling hate "hate" just because you feel uncomfortable supporting a group that is being called out for the hate it commits.

their rights being protected by our First Amendment

The First Amendment doesn't permit people to engage in hate. Beyond that, the federal law itself has been part of our discussion - despite the law, people were once allowed to commit hate against women; people were once allowed to commit hate against racial minorities. Perhaps you don't recognize the issue because you don't recognize injustice and immorality, but maintaining our nation's long but steady progress in recognizing all those who suffer injustice is a moral issue, one that you're clearly failing down on the reactionary side of.

Wrong again. We're opposing hate - opposing hate is not hate. BSA having an immoral "moral" standard is no excuse for the hate it commits.

Ok so tell me what you think is wrong with a group of like minded people promoting a Man and woman and child family belief ? The ideal family setting , are you telling me thats not good enough ? You think that is wrong ?

Im done with you. All you can see is hate, you just cant stand that other people can have rights. Its all not about you, this life isnt about you, your agenda isnt about you, I grow tired of your bullying ways. Your being a very hateful person when you bully others.

I dont like bullies, and I will defend against people like you who try to push their immoral values on good people.

Tough you cant accept what our country was founded on, and what the court justices defend also, the right to a moral stand with in your freedom of religion and speech.

You dont have any basis to claim anything is hate.. Hate is an offensive tactic where you are directly affecting something. This is a prime example of the BSA defending themselves from people who hate their belief system.

You need to come to reality and realize that people have rights in this country other then yours.

When you let that sink into your mind, then we will talk.

until then, BSA wins, immoral agenda loses.

Later.

Okay, Marm, BRAVO for your impassioned arguments #1.199 onward. you did your homework. Good job.

Walt, Where was the federal charter in the news? Does the issue appear anywhere else besides in your own head and the heads of your supporters? Here is what I would do. Period. My personal opinion. If I were the president of the BSA, Since the BSA is a trademarked enterprise, I would keep the trademark as long as I could or rename it the TRUE BSA or the REAL BSA. Then if the law were passed protecting gays from discrimination, it would be kamikaze time. Disband the BSA entirely, shut it down with the express purpose of "if we sacrifice our values and lose the last stand, Nobody could join the BSA again. Not OUR BSA. the trademark would be sold to a friendly millionaire or company or split between several successful, morally cognizant, rich companies that were anti-gay not to resurrect the BSA, but to keep the trademark paid off for the next several centuries so that no gay scouting organization could take the BSA charter and title. May seem a bit harsh, but you have no Idea how pissed off I am because of you, Walt. I had a bad run-in with a bully who hit on me, and he wasn't even gay, he was just evil, not even really gay. I yelled at him so loud that all the classes up and down the hall opened their doors to look as he sped away, afraid of being caught and found to be the source of the disturbance (anti-gay slurs) as soon as he was caught, he feebly attempted to apologize and said, "dude, chill out, I was only joking" I DID NOT chill out. I DID NOT accept his apology. The principal gave him months worth of detention just to get me to stop yelling and calm down. I never had problems with him again. Had it been a real gay kid that had done that, I would have sued his ass off after chewing him out. I've tried respecting your opinions while still maintaining my own values, but this has really pissed me off, Walt; yeah. For a while, I merely hated gays like that kid. Now I loathe them. BUT the boys scouts don't; they are simply trying to hold onto their moral values. I have a personal reason to hate gays like the one that pretended to hit on me. I suspect now that he wasn't joking and really was a F******. Either way, telling me to let go of my hate for that this A******did to me is like asking me to cut off an arm. It is not easy and I will likely never do it. Will I commit violence? I am more bark than bite, so probably no. I just like to vent. However, I will defend myself from any aggressive gay who is hitting on me. You have no idea, Walt, how much you just pissed me off. I don't care about the religious aspect anymore. I just don't want to send any kids I have to hell by sending them to a BSA that allows gays in it to get harassed like I did.

Ok so tell me what you think is wrong with a group of like minded people promoting a Man and woman and child family belief ?

This discussion is about a group that promotes hate - the unjust imposition of prejudicial action against people on the basis of bigotry. The fact that you keep on trying to deflect the discussion away from what's really going on, to try to hide the fact that what you're supporting is indefensible, shows more clearly than anything else that you realize what you're supporting is wrong but are unwilling to admit it.

Im done with you.

You'll be done with people who oppose hate when you give up supporting hate.

All you can see is hate

On the contrary, the reason why I am able to understand what's really going on here and you seem to be unable or unwilling to do so is because most of what I see is just and fair, but the BSA's actions stick out like a sore thumb - a sore thumb of hate.

you just cant stand that other people can have rights

There is no right to have a federal charter. There is no right to have privileges within the nation's armed forces. You're making stuff up again to try to justify your indefensible position.

Its all not about you

Yet repeatedly when your points have been soundly repudiated you have chosen to try to make it about me. Another very telling sign that you realize what you're supporting is wrong but are unwilling to admit it.

I grow tired of your bullying ways

There is no bullying coming from here, but rather righteous indignation keeping things honest. Hate is hate, no matter how much you try to deny it or otherwise try to obfuscate the issue. I suppose you're used to people just bending over and letting you do what you want to them when you put up your bravado in support of causes like the BSA's bigotry, and you're just not used to people of conscience standing up to such hate, calling it what it is, not allowing prevarication, and demanding justice.

Tough you cant accept what our country was founded on

This country was founded by men of my religion, not yours. It is shameful that you feel that you cannot accept that.

You dont have any basis to claim anything is hate..

I have the truth of the matter supporting my contentions. It is shameful that you feel the need to rail so hard against the truth.

This discussion is about a group that promotes hate

Sounds to me it sounds like someone who hates that other people have different views from your own. Thats the hate I see. Your showing your hatred to a group that is promoting unity values of man and woman. Thats all it is. Its like going to an amusement park, your not tall enough for a ride, are you going to cry bloody murder for discrimination because your short or are you going to respect the rules set by the park ? Of course people like you would try to smear your illogical liberal views on everyone else.

There is no right to have a federal charter. There is no right to have privileges within the nation's armed forces. You're making stuff up again to try to justify your indefensible position

LOL from reading all of this , I would say that either your blind and someone is not reading all the words to you , or your just that ignorant of a person to disrespect our Government and their decision. The Government, the courts and the people have spoke, but that is not good enough is it.

This country was founded by men of my religion, not yours. It is shameful that you feel that you cannot accept that.

I would hate to know your religion, but it sounds like one of hate and loathing of people that are different from you. Sounds like you get your jollies prying into the lives of private individuals to get your jollies off.

Walt, you really have nothing to go on here any more. After reading all of this, you fail to make your point. Your not higher then the court system, not higher then people who have the RIGHT given to them. .You are trying to steal that away from people. Sick man, just sick and pathetic. Go corrupt something else.

Walt, As i said Im done with you. I cant talk to a bully, seen them get away with too much in school. Your bullying is promoting hate, making people in a private organization is promoting a dictatorship of society. Dictators are bullies, who want to make every ones life the same and miserable. We are not all the same, we all have different views and values of morals.

You like to bully people who are not like you.

You may not like the courts decision, and thats too bad, because their decision that they could not do anything to the BSA is because of our countries founding principles. Not to discriminate, but instead to be able to freely live and express your moral beliefs based on God.

Walt, As i said Im done with you.

The fact that you keep on replying shows that you are just trying to grandstand. Either be done with me, or stop saying that you are.

I cant talk to a bully

You're not - you're talking to someone who is keeping the discussion honest by not letting you get away with deception and distortion, like your claiming that "you're done with me" and then posting more vitriol, anyway.

Your bullying is promoting hate

Again: I'm not bullying, and what I'm doing is opposing hate. No matter how many times you try to say black-is-white it won't make it true. That tendency for people to try, as you are evidently trying to, make something true by repeating it is pitiful - it just makes those of us keeping things honest have to work harder to make sure there isn't an unrebutted soap-box for such deception.

making people in a private organization is promoting a dictatorship of society

It is shameful that you're complaining about the suggestion of withdrawing the nation's official sanctioning of people in a private organization treating people abusively, instead of treating them with worth and dignity. It's downright pitiful.

Dictators are bullies

There are no dictators here. Instead there are just people of conscience opposing the hate practices by the BSA. No matter how many times you try to corrupt that reality into some fiction that assuages your bad feelings about what you support, it won't make your corruption of reality true. The only people behaving badly in this scenario are the BSA, with their hateful policies and practices.

who want to make every ones life the same and miserable

Again, you corrupt reality, probably because you find the truth troubling: The objective is, rather, that the effort here is to make things fair and just - the antithesis of that preferential, offensively hateful approach that the BSA practices, that you're supporting.

We are not all the same

Yet we all have equal worth and dignity in God's eyes, and therefore there is no excuse for not treating all the same within society.

we all have different views and values of morals

And we each have the same right to expect the same benefits of living in society, including the same access and treatment within private entities which are public accommodations and/or employers, in accordance with our own values and morals, rather than your values and morals have any special privileges in that regard.

You like to bully people who are not like you.

I don't bully anyone. I correct factually inaccurate statements, and I repudiate offensively hateful perspectives. Big difference. Unlike you, I have no antipathy for people who are "not like me". My focus is on what is acceptable behavior toward others. You can - and should - live in accordance with your own beliefs and values with regard to your own body, your own family, your own home, and your own church. The point is that so should everyone else. Where people meet - whether it is on streets, roads and highways; in the marketplace, workplace, or meeting place; etc. - each person is to be valued and respected equally for living in accordance with their own beliefs and values.

You may not like the courts decision

In time, you know, the courts' decisions will turn toward what's right, i.e., what I'm advocating for. Your reactionary support for marginalization of people who you don't like will fall by the wayside, if not this year then next year or soon thereafter. When I was growing up, people of color were regularly treated as you're advocating homosexuals be treated today, and of course that's almost ubiquitously unacceptable today. Support for, for example, same-sex marriage has almost doubled from 27% in 1996 to 50% today. And the percentages are even higher among those in their 20s and 30s as compared to among those in their 50s and 60s - eventually us older folks, with our larger percentage of immorally hateful homophobes, will die off leaving behind a more moral, just and fair society.

You may not like that, and that's too bad.

court wont change it, and the BSA wont give into people trying to bully them ..

You will may never understand that people get tired of being pressured and bullied and they finally make stand.

Like I said about the slaves above, your trying to make people into slaves again. Like a bully.

demmie-1555521

Jim5769,

I find it fascinating that you could overlook certain portions when you were busy highlighting things in bold...probably because they undermine the point you were trying to make

So it's ok for you to give your interpretation of the Scout oath, but the other words you choose not to give an explanation of, are just filler material. Right? You didn't follow the scout oath very well.

by respecting and defending the rights of others to practice their own beliefs.

So much for your oath promise. It's you, or nothing.

your relationships with others should be honest and open. You should respect and defend the rights of all people.

What about my right to be a scout? Again, personal attacks. You didn't follow the oath.

Don't like that fact? Then change your lifestyle or else don't join an organization whose values you don't share and you aren't interested in upholding.

There are gay scouts, gay football players, gay politicians,that have no animosity to other people. You, on the other hand, are taking it to a new level, trying to spin what is already written in the Scout oath, to your own personal interpretation.How do you know if a gay boy will change for the better, by being a scout? What is written, is written. You can't change it. Accept it.

Jesus accepted all people that wanted to be with him.

#1.173 - Thu Jul 19, 2012 9:01 AM EDT

That is a thoroughly flawed post from an argumentation, logic, reasoning, and factual standpoint, but I'll go ahead and rebut it anyway.

So it's ok for you to give your interpretation of the Scout oath, but the other words you choose not to give an explanation of, are just filler material. Right? You didn't follow the scout oath very well.

What words did you need explained? You failed to specify. Your final sentence is based on what?

by respecting and defending the rights of others to practice their own beliefs.

So much for your oath promise. It's you, or nothing.

At no point in that post did I say that you didn't have the right to practice your own beliefs. However, in deciding to join the BSA, and taking the Oath, you agreed that you shared in and will uphold the BSA's values and beliefs. What you are spouting on this thread actually runs contrary to those beliefs and values (as I pointed out), so it isn't a matter of "me, or nothing" and I'm not the one violating my "oath promise" (as you put it).

your relationships with others should be honest and open. You should respect and defend the rights of all people.

What about my right to be a scout? Again, personal attacks. You didn't follow the oath.

There is no "right" to be a Scout, so you have no basis on which to argue that your rights are being violated. You can apply to join, and the organization doesn't have to accept you, or renew your membership if your conduct as a member is not in keeping with the organization's values and practices. There was no personal attack in that post. Again, nothing in my post violated the Oath.

There are gay scouts, gay football players, gay politicians,that have no animosity to other people. You, on the other hand, are taking it to a new level, trying to spin what is already written in the Scout oath, to your own personal interpretation.How do you know if a gay boy will change for the better, by being a scout? What is written, is written. You can't change it. Accept it.

You are reading animosity into the post that wasn't there, simply because you don't like what I had to say. The attempts to spin what is written in the Scout Oath and Law are coming from you, not me. I relayed what was written, and I identified where you were trying to spin it. As you said: "What is written, is written. You can't change it. Accept it." In this case, the written word refutes what you're claiming. I'm sorry you find that disturbing.

Jesus accepted all people that wanted to be with him.

Since you just implied a "WWJD" argument, perhaps you should note that you're overlooking some key qualifiers to your assertion: Jesus accepts all those who repent of their sinful ways and accept him as Lord. He doesn't accept unrepentant and wicked souls, although he still loves them and wishes that they would come to accept Him--people have free will, you know. Perhaps you forgot or overlooked those fundamental lessons in church and/or Sunday school? Now, if there are "gays" who wish to renounce homosexual conduct and wish to honor and abide by the precepts of the Scout Oath and Law, then I see no reason that the BSA would have a problem with them joining--but that would still be up to the BSA to decide.

WaltUU

The hate does go on, the hate of people trying to force a private organization to accept something they dont want.

Stop with the self-stroking nonsense: Opposing hate is not hate.

...
#1.208 - Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:50 AM EDT

Refusing to condone or approve of a behavior is not equivalent to hate. Falsely accusing people of "hating" you and then savagely attacking them for not giving you their approval---which is exactly what you are doing--is hate.

You don't get to manufacture hypothetical hatred in order to "oppose" it, sorry.

You've made it quite clear in your posts that you hate traditional values, and it really drives you wild that an organization refuses to abandon them and condone your viewpoint. That qualifies you as a travaphobe, a bigot, and a bully. Congratulations!

WaltUU

Nothing hateful walt. ... A standard is set in the Boy Scouts

A definitively hateful standard, that persecutes people not based on their capabilities but rather because of the unjust and petty antipathy by the BSA for a class of people.

...
#1.178 - Sun Aug 5, 2012 8:13 AM EDT

Let's see if we can't explain this in a way that the deliberately obtuse can follow, since they still don't seem to get it:

The Hooters restaurant franchise does not have to hire (and may fire) women who are overweight or unattractive, because they do not fit the criteria established for the position. Yes, this was already litigated and upheld.

Scout leaders also have established criteria, including moral standards--which is perfectly acceptable under the law. Prospective leaders are aware of these standards when they apply to join and become adult leaders. Leaders that do not comply are at risk of being dismissed. That is all that happened here. It's the same as if a Hooters waitress packed on too much weight.

You're only getting yourself worked into a tizzy because the person happens to be homosexual, and that's the current pet constituency of the PC crowd. You can't stand the fact that there was nothing wrong with what happened, so you conjure up allegations of hate where none exist (except inside you).

Sad, pathetic, and wrong.

Refusing to condone or approve of a behavior is not equivalent to hate.

As I already said, hate requires action against someone else, so just holding an opinion is not hate. In order to be hate, it would be necessary to, for example, fire someone from their job because you don't approve of their sexual orientation.

Falsely accusing people of "hating" you and then savagely attacking them for not giving you their approval---which is exactly what you are doing--is hate.

More ridiculous BS. First, I'm not a homosexual, so the hate that the BSA practices isn't "hating" me. Second, I'm attacking them for practicing hate (see definition above), not for not giving approval to the homosexual orientation (as if someone's nature was subject to someone else's approval - what a ludicrous concept you've come up with there). Third, what I'm doing is opposing hate. No amount of silly redirections and fallacious insinuations is going to allow you to avoid the truth of that.

You've made it quite clear in your posts that you hate traditional values

That's a lie. I'm perfectly happy with people, such as yourself, living in accordance with what you consider "traditional" values. Stop lying - it only underscores how you don't have a leg to stand on. This isn't about preventing you from living your life in accordance with your sexual orientation; this is about those you support taking action against others for living their lives in accordance with their sexual orientation.

It's remarkable how many times you've lost the point of this discussion.

and it really drives you wild that an organization refuses to abandon them and condone your viewpoint

I couldn't care less about what the BSA "condones" - I care only about how they treat others, and specifically that they don't practice hate - i.e., that they don't discriminate in employment or participation on the basis of someone's sexual orientation or, in the latter case, on the basis of someone's mother's sexual orientation.

As I already said, hate requires action against someone else, so just holding an opinion is not hate. In order to be hate, it would be necessary to, for example, fire someone from their job because you don't approve of their sexual orientation.

You just showed your twisted view of hate right here. The direct action is the woman making herself public about being gay. No one had to know that or needed to. Who would think it, she has a kid right? Man woman makes child. But she had to test the waters, and her actions is what caused the result of her being let go.

The BSA has the opinion that morality of man and woman being together. A morality the homosexuality is a perversion. They can hold that opinion and have the right and protection to do so. They didnt fire her, she fired her self once she made herself no longer fitting into the standard of the BSA..

Cops have to pass a standard every year, running a certain distance, so many push ups, sit ups.. GUess what walt, when a cop becomes too BIG from fat, and can no longer run a mile in X amount of minutes, no longer do X amount of sit ups, They fire themselves from the job, because they no longer fit the standard. Maybe they should pull the FAT lazy card , thats why you want. Out of shape cops running around after criminals. If you dont fit a standard, you are cut from it. Thats what is going on here with the BSA. You just cant accept it.

That's a lie. I'm perfectly happy with people, such as yourself, living in accordance with what you consider "traditional" values. Stop lying - it only underscores how you don't have a leg to stand on. This isn't about preventing you from living your life in accordance with your sexual orientation; this is about those you support taking action against others for living their lives in accordance with their sexual orientation.

It's remarkable how many times you've lost the point of this discussion.

Your not happy with traditional values, else you would never bothered the BSA with your views.

I couldn't care less about what the BSA "condones" - I care only about how they treat others, and specifically that they don't practice hate - i.e., that they don't discriminate in employment or participation on the basis of someone's sexual orientation or, in the latter case, on the basis of someone's mother's sexual orientation.

The woman did it to herself. If you didnt care what the BSA condones, you would leave them be. This woman had no need to let everyone know publicly she was gay. She did this to herself.

I've been paying attention.

Something is being lost here.

Homosexuality is NOT a behavior. It is an orientation.

Sex is a behavior that some Heterosexuals engage in and some Homosexuals engage in.

Not all Gay people are having sex.

What the BSA is doing is singling out people for their orientation whether they have sex or not.

You just showed your twisted view of hate right here.

What else could someone trying to rationalize hate say?

The direct action is the woman making herself public about being gay.

Heterosexual people's marital status and sexual orientation are made public by many things they do. Mitt Romney walking on stage with his wife Anne is an action that you would, if the perspective you're peddling was honorable, preclude their participation in BSA. But the perspective you're peddling isn't honorable. It's hateful. It applies standards to homosexuals that it doesn't apply to heterosexuals. That's wrong.

This is interesting: From the Cub Scouts Overview on the BSA website: "Family involvement is an essential part of Cub Scouting. When we speak of parents or families, we are not referring to any particular family structure. Some boys live with two parents, some live with one parent, some have foster parents, and some live with other relatives or guardians. Whomever a boy calls his family is his family in Cub Scouting."

But of course that's the cub scouts... perhaps as boys get older in the BSA organization their indoctrination into the hateful perspectives espoused by the BSA causes them to become LESS able to handle fellow scouts with gay parents?

So the BSA is not only hateful in its actions, but hypocritical as well. They say one thing but do something else. How nice.

Cops have to pass a standard every year, running a certain distance, so many push ups, sit ups..

There is nothing that makes a lesbian mother any less capable of being a scoutmaster. That's just the fiction you tell to rationalize the hate the BSA practices.

Your not happy with traditional values

I live traditional values. Stop lying to try to hide the hate you support.

else you would never bothered the BSA with your views.

Another person thinking that they can get away with spewing "No True Scotsman" fallacies with impunity. The fact that you have to defend your support for hate with fallacies should be another warning sign for you, but I suspect it is one you'll blindly ignore.

The woman did it to herself.

No, the BSA did it to her child. And in some ways, you helped do it to that child too.

If you didnt care what the BSA condones, you would leave them be.

Another lie. I already told you that I only care about what the BSA does. Not what it thinks.

Your twisted views on hate changes every time I read what you have to say. Up above in my comment I clearly showed your flawed thinking of hate. You truly have a double standard, and bigot mindset. I will never stop seeing this is bully tactics against an innocent group. The best thing the BSA has going for them is the ANTI bully police, the Supreme Court and our Constitution to protect them from the immoral and viscous attacks of liberal bullies.

Your twisted views on hate changes every time I read what you have to say.

On the contrary, my views on hate are consistent. You're just grasping at straws to distract attention away from your support for hate.

Up above in my comment I clearly showed your flawed thinking of hate.

No you didn't. You showed that you really have nothing legitimate to say in response to the truth I outlined.

You truly have a double standard, and bigot mindset.

In reality, I have a remarkably consistent and honorable standard, unlike the BSA.

I will never stop seeing this is bully tactics against an innocent group.

As someone who supports the hate the BSA engages in, what else can you do to try to defend them against the righteous charges made against them?

The best thing the BSA has going for them is the ANTI bully police, the Supreme Court and our Constitution to protect them from the immoral and viscous attacks of liberal bullies.

The best thing the BSA has going for them is the support of right-wing reactionaries who have worked hard to turn back progress civilization has made - people who would if given the chance, put African Americans back on plantations, women back in the kitchen, and homosexuals back in the closet, while protecting their priests and ministers from charges of sexual abuse and protecting their politicians from charges of being beholden to greedy money-grubbing corporate interests.

By contrast, people of conscience have truth and justice on their side, and 400 years of history trending toward progress instead of regression.

Marmaduke, the BSA has the Supreme Court on their side -- for now. But the Court has been known to reverse itself; it has happened more than once.

It cant reverse this, because this is the ONE WAY wall of the separation of Church and State. The real wall that Thomas Jefferson Meant when the government can not interfere with setting any type of standard or state religion for Christianity.

people who would if given the chance, put African Americans back on plantations,

Civil Slavery , not condoned in the bible. Slavery of that time was a lot different then slavery of todays time, its meaning was different. IM a slave to my Job, I had to enslave myself to it, thats what the slavery of the biblical days were, never was slavery anything like what we did just not to Blacks walt, but irish, chinese, or any other ethnic group we held as slaves and mistreated. Slaves of the biblical days were treated with respect. Nice try though.

women back in the kitchen, and homosexuals back in the closet, while protecting their priests and ministers from charges of sexual abuse and protecting their politicians from charges of being beholden to greedy money-grubbing corporate interests.

women back in the kitchen,

The bible also never condoned treating women badly. There were certain rules everyone had to follow due to jewish laws and culture of that time.

As for a woman being in the kitchen, you act like that is a degrading place to be. A woman deserves all the respect and honor for her hard work she does raising a family. In todays society , we made it impossible for the ideal setting and roles for male and female. There is no longer any identity, its all smashed together. No father role Masculine, no mother role Feminine, just parents.

and homosexuals back in the closet,

Did they need to come out ? Its already a sin in God eyes. What is the big deal with them having to announce to the world they are gay to begin with ? They looking for some hot date ? Just letting others gays out there , hey im available, and im gay.

When I am out with people having normal conversation, i just do go off ranting about, hey everyone I love this steak dinner, oh by the way im heterosexual, I love women, its nice to see all those curves on a woman, any way hows your steak ? No place or need for anyone hetero or gay to be talking about their private sexual orientations. Its a Drama Queen tactic, thats all it is.

while protecting their priests and ministers from charges of sexual abuse and protecting their politicians from charges of being beholden to greedy money-grubbing corporate interests.

None of this is condoned in the bible either. Jesus made it quite clear about those who harm the little children. The church has given Christianity a bad name, but with that being said, any theologian could show you everything about the bible is based on an Absolute Good moral standard.

By contrast, people of conscience have truth and justice on their side, and 400 years of history trending toward progress instead of regression.

The usa IS regressing. Society is decaying, and kids today have absolutely no respect for anything or anyone today. Like last night i was trying to leave out of a plaza and groups of young kids maybe 12 13 years old, just standing there in my way. I pull my truck up, and they just stand there looking at me, i move it up against there bodies and shout out the window to get the hell out of the way.. Its like there every where I go, nothing but punks. No respect what so ever.

So much for your claims of being done with this.

Slavery of that time was a lot different then slavery of todays time

You do realize that you're rationalizing slavery? Slavery. Thanks for making it clear how immoral your perspective is.

Slaves of the biblical days were treated with respect. Nice try though.

Let's put you in chains, the way many slaves in ancient times were kept, and see how much you like it. Being someone else's property, instead of choosing to be somewhere and working at something by choice, is morally offensive. Thanks for making it clear how immoral your perspective is.

As for a woman being in the kitchen, you act like that is a degrading place to be.

When relegated there by power structures in society instead of by their own individual choice, it is. Thanks for making it clear how immoral your perspective is.

Its already a sin in God eyes.

No it isn't. That's just your mythology talking.

What is the big deal with them having to announce to the world they are gay to begin with ?

Coming out of the closet isn't a matter of announcing to the world, but rather it is about not hiding from the world.

When I am out with people having normal conversation, i just do go off ranting about, hey everyone I love this steak dinner, oh by the way im heterosexual, I love women, its nice to see all those curves on a woman, any way hows your steak ?

Bull. Most heterosexuals through their formative years and as young adults do discuss relationships with friends and acquaintances. "Eileen, where were you Saturday night?" "I was out with Tony! He's so cute!" If Eilene was out with Tina, she shouldn't have had any concern about saying so - same for same because God made her that way despite your corrupted view of the world telling you otherwise.

None of this is condoned in the bible either.

It still happens. You don't get to avoid reality just because it undercuts the value of something you prefer.

The usa IS regressing.

Wrong. Despite the best efforts of regressives and reactionaries, we're still enjoying the benefits of human progress in this country. It's a shame you've dug yourself so far into the ground that you cannot see that.

Society is decaying, and kids today have absolutely no respect for anything or anyone today.

Children today actually have more respect for things than your generation did, but you'll evidently be unable to acknowledge that.

Like last night i was trying to leave out of a plaza and groups of young kids maybe 12 13 years old, just standing there in my way. I pull my truck up, and they just stand there looking at me, i move it up against there bodies and shout out the window to get the hell out of the way.. Its like there every where I go, nothing but punks. No respect what so ever.

Sounds like you are practicing some massive entitlement mentality there, like the world should array itself to your comfort and convenience. This might come as a shock to you but you live in a world with other people.

You will get the respect you give, and so from your description of this incident, and how you've been going on for weeks now defending your right to disrespect a whole class of Americans, you seem destined to have very little respect coming your way.

WaltUU

So much for your claims of being done with this.

Slavery of that time was a lot different then slavery of todays time

You do realize that you're rationalizing slavery? Slavery. Thanks for making it clear how immoral your perspective is.

No walt , thank you for letting me know you have ZERO % of knowing the difference between slavery types and any understanding of the bible.

Let's put you in chains, the way many slaves in ancient times were kept, and see how much you like it. Being someone else's property, instead of choosing to be somewhere and working at something by choice, is morally offensive. Thanks for making it clear how immoral your perspective is.

No walt , thank you for showing how ignorant you are of slavery of the past and civil slavery of the more present. Thanks for making it clear I am truly talking to someone who is clueless. once again please try your best to understand what I am saying. I know its hard for you, but try to realize that if your working at a job , your a slave. Work can not treat you bad, just like they were not allowed back in biblical days. Do i condone Biblical slavery ? If a family who was starving, or a person who was going to be out on the streets, is given an option to be taken care of, and treated with respect, given work to do, and in retuen will be fed, and sheltered, then yes, I condone it. Oh my God walt.. that sounds like..a JOB to me.. Wow. slavery , job.. hum.... Now does the bible condone a slave being mistreated, it does not , It is against any type of harsh behavior against slaves. Would the bible condone civil slavery of a couple hundred years ago ? No way, it would condemn it, as would I. Walt you are really lost.

Sounds like you are practicing some massive entitlement mentality there, like the world should array itself to your comfort and convenience. This might come as a shock to you but you live in a world with other people.

So do they walt. They also live in a world with other people. And when your blocking a road, and standing there looking at a person, like I am the one who is doing something wrong, there is an issue. So now your telling me, you all for kids who are purposely standing in the road, and wont move ? Is that what your condoning ? WALT you are a sick , sick individual. Kids with respect would get out of the road when a car comes, now days they challenge , and push and test the waters to see how far and much they can get away with.

Hey walt, where is their respect for me ? A big truck moving towards them and they want to stand there challenging me ? Yea i gave them plenty of respect, I didnt run them over, i made sure i had to inconvienance myself and go partially up over a curb. While they just stand their smiling. That walt, is no respect, They gave me none, I gave them my respect by not running over them.

Its already a sin in God eyes.

No it isn't. That's just your mythology talking.

What is the big deal with them having to announce to the world they are gay to begin with ?

Nope walt, just the bible.

You've made the regressive nature of your perspective so clear, that your own reply does a better job repudiating what you wrote than anything I could write in reply. Congratulations... you've effectively undercut yourself.

Thank you Walt, im glad you are clear on how YOU think everything should be.

WaltUU

Refusing to condone or approve of a behavior is not equivalent to hate.

As I already said, hate requires action against someone else, so just holding an opinion is not hate. In order to be hate, it would be necessary to, for example, fire someone from their job because you don't approve of their sexual orientation.

...
#1.221 - Tue Sep 11, 2012 6:28 AM EDT

Gotta admire how much you keep twisting and turning trying to deny the hate that you're spewing.

You do realize that by your "definition" of "hate" that you're saying the Hooters chain "hates" fat women because they can't be hired there as waitresses? If you can't see the problem in such a claim, then you're way beyond rational discussion.

You are engaged in manufacturing hatred that doesn't exist just so that you can "oppose" it with your infantile tirades. Nobody "hates" the woman for being a lesbian. She simply doesn't share the values of the BSA and isn't willing to represent them in how she lives her life--so she can't be a Scoutmaster. Is it discrimination? Certainly--the perfectly legal kind. Is that the same thing as hatred? Not at all--not even in the same ballpark, no matter how much you clearly wish that it were.

Gotta admire how much you keep twisting and turning trying to deny the hate that you're spewing.

No hate from my side. I'm opposing hate. I realize that as a supporter of the hate that the BSA practices you have to deceive yourself into thinking otherwise. I respect your right to believe something utterly backwards like that.

You do realize that by your "definition" of "hate" that you're saying the Hooters chain "hates" fat women because they can't be hired there as waitresses?

I'm not going to defend Hooters - are you? Not excusing them, it is important to note that Hooters only discriminates on the basis of appearance for their on-stage staff - part of the show they're putting on for an audience. Back office personnel aren't subjected to such discrimination. If they were, then yes that would be hate. The reality is that our society - including unattractive people - generally do hate unattractive people, in many ways. The fact that you seek to rationalize such hate rather than recognize it as a societal ill is another indication of the failings of your perspective.

If you can't see the problem in such a claim, then you're way beyond rational discussion.

If you cannot see the moral failing inherent in your advocacy for hate of unattractive people by society, then "you're way beyond rational discussion".

You are engaged in manufacturing hatred that doesn't exist

No: Rather it is you who are working so hard to deceive yourself into thinking society is righteous to feed your prejudices and predilections to abjure. It's part of this anti-compassion, anti-respect ethos that many quarters of society promote, and evidently have convinced folks like yourself is worthy.

Walt: It's called having standards and enforcing those standards. Something which you obviously do not understand. Have to wonder if you've ever been held accountable for anything in your life, since it seems to be such a foreign concept to you.

Walt: It's called having standards and enforcing those standards.

Wrong, Jim: It's called having hateful standards, and enforcing those hateful standards, rationalizing the hate however they can, to try to resist being righteously called out for engaging in such hateful actions.

Something which you obviously do not understand.

Clearly, I do understand having standards, since I'm making clear how BSA fails to live up to reasonable standards for living in a civilized society with others. Perhaps that is something you don't understand.

Have to wonder if you've ever been held accountable for anything in your life

What an inanely self-serving bit of claptrap. Get over yourself, Jim. I'm sorry you're insulted that the hate you support is being exposed for what it is, and that the organization you seem to support is being revealed as institutionalized practitioner of immoral hate, but your lame attempts to make up vacuously pointless mud to sling at the people who are revealing the truth about the immoral, hateful nature of your favored BSA are ridiculous.

Boy Scouts: We're keeping policy banning gays

And yet, it's the heterosexuals that have been covering up all the kids being molested by their heterosexual leaders for years.

'Pedophile priests' and Boy Scouts

www.wnd.com/2002/05/13827/

May 8, 2002 – David Kupelian is an award-winning journalist, managing editor of WND, editor of Whistleblower magazine, and author of the best-selling book, ...

Boy Scouts helped child molesters cover their tracks, files show ...

articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/16/.../la-me-boy-scouts-files-20120916

Sep 16, 2012 – Boy Scouts helped alleged molesters cover tracks, files show ... employees were suspected of sexually abusing children, Boy Scout officials ...

WaltUU Ignoring author

...I'm sorry you're insulted that the hate you support is being exposed for what it is...
#1.236 - Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:47 AM EDT

Walt, the only thing you're exposing is that you are a hater, frantically ginning up imagined hatred so that you can "oppose" it and consider yourself heroic. Thanks for continuing to confirm that I had you pegged correctly when I compared you to a twisted Don Quixote figure.

More inanely self-serving and puerile nonsense, starting with the utterly childish quoting of your claim that you're ignoring authors that apparently intimidate your efforts at bigotry, such as Erin and I, and continuing with your repeated refusals to acknowledge that you are supporting hate, and that Erin and I and others are calling you to account for your support of hate. No matter how many times you try to deny it - no matter how many times you try to call opposing hate as hate - it doesn't make it true. It just exposes just how maniacally-invested you are in trying to defend such a corrupted and indefensible perspective.