E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSJennifer Tyrrell, who was ousted as a den mother for her son's Cub Scout troop because of her sexual orientation, is fighting back. Tyrrell talks to msnbc's Thomas Roberts about her petition to change the Boy Scouts of America's long-standing policy on banning gays and lesbians.
The Boy Scouts of America will keep their controversial policy banning gay scouts and leaders after a confidential two-year review, the organization said Tuesday.
The announcement comes amid a stepped-up campaign from activist groups urging an end to the membership standards.
“The vast majority of the parents of youth we serve value their right to address issues of same-sex orientation within their family, with spiritual advisers, and at the appropriate time and in the right setting,” said Bob Mazzuca, Chief Scout Executive of the Boy Scouts. “While a majority of our membership agrees with our policy, we fully understand that no single policy will accommodate the many diverse views among our membership or society.”
The Boy Scouts convened a committee of 11 senior volunteers and professional leaders to decide whether the policy was still in the organization’s best interests after a resolution was put forward to reconsider it, the private group said in a statement that was first reported by The Associated Press. The nearly two-year-long review began in 2010.
The committee reached a "unanimous consensus" that it was the "best policy" for the BSA, Scouts' spokesman Deron Smith said in an email. That conclusion was shared at a February board meeting and recently reviewed by the officers of the board, he said.
“The committee included a diversity of perspectives and opinions. The review included forthright and candid conversation and extensive research and evaluations -- both from within Scouting and from outside the organization. The committee’s work and conclusion is that this policy reflects the beliefs and perspectives of the BSA’s members, thereby allowing Scouting to remain focused on its mission and the work it is doing to serve more youth,” the statement said.
The review was conducted confidentially "to allow the committee to make the best decision for the organization," Smith said.
In June, the Boy Scouts said the organization was considering another resolution proposed at the group's annual meeting the month before that also called for ending the policy. But the decision announced Tuesday means the Scouts’ board will take no further action on that resolution, Smith said.
"Resolutions can always be submitted as defined by our bylaws, but the officers of the board have no plans to further review this issue," he said.
Boy Scouts review controversial anti-gay policy
Eagle Scout son of lesbian moms: Boys Scouts must end gay discrimination
Gay mom upset after dismissal by Boy Scouts
Boy Scouts board member opposes anti-gay policy
The Boy Scouts’ policy became a focus of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000, when the justices sided with the organization in a lawsuit involving a former assistant Scoutmaster who was gay, citing the protections of the First Amendment.
Courtesy of Jennifer Tyrrell
Tyrrell, a 32-year-old stay at home mother of four, said she agreed to become the den master on the day she signed up her son, Cruz Burns, for the local troop, last year. She had concerns about the Boy Scouts' policy against homosexuals, but a Cubmaster said that – locally -- they wouldn't have problem.
Zach Wahls, an Eagle Scout who is the son of a lesbian couple, has recently campaigned for changing the policy, along with Jennifer Tyrrell, who was ousted from her post as a Tiger Cubs’ den leader in April because she is a lesbian. She started an online petition to seek changes to the Boy Scouts policy.
Smith said the Boy Scouts would accept Tyrrell's petition on Wednesday, but did not plan to discuss the policy. Another big batch of petition signatures was delivered by Wahls to the Boy Scouts' annual meeting in May.
Wahls denounced what he said was "the secretive nature surrounding how this conclusion was reached" and called the announcement "old news."
"We've heard this line before, and we'll hear it again before this is all said and done. I've said this before and I'll say it again: this will be the official BSA policy up until the day it finally ends," he said in an email to msnbc.com. "Regardless of your thoughts on homosexuality, surely we can agree that gay people who serve our troops and communities deserve our respect and gratitude."
BSA board member James Turley, global chairman and CEO of consulting and tax firm Ernst & Young, said in mid-June that he was working within the organization to encourage dialogue on the policy, which is not one he would “personally endorse.” When contacted Tuesday, his firm's media representatives said he would have no comment beyond his earlier remarks.
“Scouting believes that good people can personally disagree on this topic and still work together to achieve the life-changing benefits to youth through Scouting," the BSA National Executive Board said in the statement. "While not all Board members may personally agree with this policy, and may choose a different direction for their own organizations, BSA leadership agrees this is the best policy for the organization and supports it for the BSA.”
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Missing Iowa girls' families fear they were kidnapped
- Video: Bus driver catches girl, 7, in three-story plunge
- 17 hurt, four critical, in Alabama bar shooting
- Crews drag lake in search for missing young Iowa cousins
- Battle brews over Trayvon Martin memorial
Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Interesting how a PRIVATE organization such as the Boy Scouts chooses to stand true to their values and you critics automatically pull the "hate/intolerance card". They obviously must "hate" or "intolerate" anyone who doesn't agree with the principles they stand for...right?
And then advocates of the gay agenda pose as though you are all accepting and all encompassing. FAIL. America's most noble virtue of "tolerance" has been hijacked. The tolerant person ALLEGEDLY occupies neutral ground, a place of complete impartiality where each person is permitted to decide for themself. No judgments allowed...no "forcing" personal views...that all views are equally valid is one of the most entrenched assumptions of a society committed to relativism. And it's a myth.
Most of what passes for tolerance today is nothing more than intellectual cowardice, a fear of intelligent engagement. Those who brandish the word "intolerant" are unwilling to be challenged by other views or grapple with contrary opinions, or even to consider them. It's easier to hurl an insult—"you intolerant bigot Boy Scouts"—than to confront an idea and either refute it or be changed by it. In the modern era, "tolerance" has become intolerance.
We don't treat all ideas and positions as if they have the same merit, lest we run into contradiction. Some ideas are good, some are bad. Some are true, some are false. Some are brilliant, others are just plain foolish.
The first principle, what might be called "civility," is at the heart of the classical view of tolerance. It can be loosely equated with the word "respect." Tolerance applies to how we treat people we disagree with, not how we treat ideas we think false.
Whenever you're charged with intolerance, always ask for a definition. When they tell you it means neutrality, that all views are equally valid and true, then no one is ever tolerant because no one is ever neutral about their own views. Point out the contradiction. Point out that this kind tolerance is a myth.
I support the BSA for taking a stand of what they believe - especially at the cost of the government denying them access to public facilities, funding, and donors withdrawing. You will have my donation for taking a stand for your values who you hold true to.
The BSA is not only a simple, private organization. They have a federal charter that legitimizes special privileges they receive from the government. As long as they have that, the are obligated to the nation (everyone in the nation, not just you, Caballero), not just their members.
Then someone can sue which I'm sure someone has. What special privileges are you referring to, Walt? If you mean access to government facilities (i.e. schools) - that has been denied. Lastly, you should clarify how a federal charter obligates a private organization such as the BSA to accommodate "everyone in the nation".
The Red Cross has a federal charter but they cannot accommodate all homosexuals to donate blood.
So you are participating in a discussion without understanding what you're talking about. Noted.
The special privileges have been mentioned earlier in this discussion.
Why are people who defend bigotry so lazy? Why cannot they do simple Internet searches? It took me two minutes to search for and find a dozen references on the Internet to answer this question. Laziness is shameful.
This is on track to be changing soon. When that ban was put in place, there were significant health concerns, related mostly to science's inability to adequately screen donated blood, thereby requiring reliance on probability and statistics. Both aspects have now been effectively resolved.
But it is weird that you couldn't tell the difference between science and bigotry. They are polar opposites.
"My birthright entitles me to a nation free of the kind of religious persecution that the BSA engages in as a matter of policy."
Entitles me? Entitles me? I suggest that you go back and re-read the Constitution. You are protected from religious persecution and from a state-sponsored theocracy, but you are not entitled to be protected from life's inequalities.
How is the BSA ban on homosexuality religious persecution?
Indeed, I have. And so apparently have you, though your logic is a bit faulty:
Precisely. I'm entitled to have my country withhold special privileges from private organizations that practice institutional bigotry. That's what that part of the Constitution you didn't understand actually means.
You should have quit without posting such clear and definitive support for a perspective you clearly are lamely trying to find some way to disagree with.
Wow. And I thought I was being arrogant.
Disliking and refusing to have homosexuals in an organization is not bigotry. Read the definition of bigotry and tell me what's so intolerable about not wanting to have homosexuals part of my organizaiton? They are an abberation of nature, and they are as distrubing to many people as a two-headed snake, a frog with no legs, or any other abberation. Homosexuals scream "bigot" to force people to accept them. There's no reason why they should.
disliking people for being attracted to the same sex isn't bigotry? okay...
You either were or weren't - it doesn't matter. What matters is that you were defending immoral bigotry.
Wrong. Disliking is not bigotry. Refusing to have homosexuals in an organization is bigotry. Immoral and self-serving.
Did you even read what you wrote? Amazing. "How is intolerance intolerance?" Ridiculous.
No they're not. You're just making that up to defend your immoral advocacy.
The defect, there, is in those who are disturbed.
Homosexuals and others call bigotry "bigotry" to make it clear to bigots that their behavior is unacceptable.
Walt: if YOU are not going to join the Boy Scouts, how does this affect you? It is true what personalresponsibility said: We are protected from RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION and a STATE - RUN THEOCRACY. Apparently you don't know what a state-run theocracy is. It would be a Boy-scout-run theocracy: the boy scouts are not the government. AND it is not YOUR government: it is everyone's government, not just your's. Saying that you want YOUR government to command in any way except via voting. You think that as long as "those privileges" that the scouts have are the only ones destroyed you are happy. THEY ARE NOT YOUR PRIVILEGES. Stop trying to take away other's privileges and instead focus on building your own! For heaven's sakes, if you want to join scouts, make the GSA: gay scouts of America! Problem Solved, for one who does not understand that the scouts are not the government and are not institutionalizing theocracy! boy, that was an irritating explanation!
If you're not going to join the Red Cross, how does their mismanagement of donated blood affect you?
As it is, the BSA deliberately and offensively disrespects not only certain groups within our society, but whole religions as well. The BSA therefore fills the minds and hearts of thousands upon thousands every year with hateful intention. That affects everyone in society.
Indeed, and that includes protection from religious persecution and theocracy applied under the auspices of a federal charter, or under the auspices of employing people to work, or under the auspices of engaging with other entities in commerce.
On the contrary - I do, and you clearly do not.
The government is the government, and the BSA holds a federal charter granted by that government.
It is established to protect everyone's rights, not just the rights of people YOU like.
This demonstrates that you don't understand that the United States is a republic.
Stop your lame attempts to make this about me. This is about justice and fairness. Perhaps you don't have any appreciation for justice and fairness, but they are fundamental tenets of our nation.
Privileges granted contrary to justice and fairness weaken our nation. Anyone harmed by such injustice and unfairness deserve remedy and are owed our best efforts to bring about such remedy.
Stop trying to defend selfishness, self-centeredness, and self-fulfilling nonsense.
Walt: The Red Cross is an organization where if it messed up my LIFE would be on the line. In the Boy Scouts, only some gay feelings are on the line; there is a big difference here. I would support measures to regulate the Red Cross FOR THE SOLE REASON that they do have blood banks and I would require their services if the need should arise. Somebody's life over some gay feelings? one is more important than the other, and you'd be crazy to support the so-called rights of gays over someone's life. It is not a RIGHT to join the boy scouts; it is a privilege, Walt. AND the Boy Scouts themselves never are endorsing hate like you claim they are, or else the streets would be littered with wounded and dying gays after people attacked them; at least as far as you are saying they are doing is true. Also, Name one organization for gays that does have a federal charter: if you can find one, your arguments are nonsense. What about the KKK and the Imperial Klans of America? do they have federal charters? I would hope not, because being Black or Asian or Hispanic or Arabic are not wrong: only if the individuals within them are gay they are wrong, and not for being Black, Asian, Hispanic or Arabic, but for being disgusting and backward (gay). I'm fine with other races, but I'm not fine with a guy looking at me across the street like he's having an internal debate to ask me out. IF a gay guy asked me out, I would thoroughly chew him out in public and call the police if he continued that. I'd put so much litigation on his ass that he'd end up in the slammer, where he WILL meet some friends who enjoy playing his type of games. I think I'm being awfully lenient with how I am not being any more outspoken against the gays today. I know of some people in my life who were hit on by gays. I feel that any time that someone hits on you and you do not want it AND if that come on affected you (made you the target of people who kill gays and people who are associated with gays) then it should be seen as a crime. I've heard of Matthew Shepard, the gay kid who was killed by the right wing extremists, and there is a very short distance that they have to travel mentally upon seeing the gay hit on you for them to think you are gay too. one does not know if any more of these extremists are out there, and I don't want to be killed for something I am not. The only way to make it clear that I do not support gays too, especially if they might be watching, is to publicly berate and insult the gay and/or wear buttons or badges with anti-gay insignias in order to show that I want nothing to do with them. Plus, the buttons and insignias show how I actually think in the real world and believe; doubly insuring me against being mistaken for doing anything more than tolerating them when the don't speak out and mind their own business, and showing the truth; I Can think, without any religious motivation, that gay sex is disgusting and abominable. I don't want MY future children from joining scouts if it repeals this ban, and it will be such a shame if this ban is ever lifted. Again; make your own gays scouting organization!
Doesn't matter in this context. The nature of the federal charters are the same.
Even you cannot be so naive to believe that. Raising another generation of bigoted hate-mongers affects everyone.
It is a privilege to have a federal charter. It is a privilege to employ people to work for you. It is a privilege to collect money for services.
Or is the point there lost on you?
The National Park Service, Fannie Mae, the TVA, etc., all have provisions respecting equal rights for homosexuals. So that shows clearly that it is your "arguments" that are nonsense. The BSA is unusual among entities with federal charters by its institutionalized practice of hate.
Gays are victims of senseless violent crime more often than non-gays, due to the hateful natures of groups like the BSA hiding behind the visage of legitimacy granted to it by its pervasive acceptance by society. The BSA probably causes more damage, in terms of the legitimizing of antipathy toward gays, than dedicated anti-gay organizations, since most rational people, even teens, understand the nature of anti-gay organizations and place their actions in proper context more readily that those of the BSA.
Your own homophobia has no bearing on whether the BSA should be hateful.
Your own self-focus seems to blind you to the fact that no one should be killed for what they are! As such, your comment reflects a distinct lack of acknowledgement of others as people. Interacting in society with such innate disrespect for anyone unlike you is inexcusable.
More thoroughly offensive rationalization for hateful behavior.
Walt, I find it funny and invigorating to see what you will come up with next. How refreshing! You know that every time you reply with you naive optimism, I am going to just say the truth as I see it in return. You give me ammunition to use against you. I actually READ what you write, laugh at its absurdity, and write something in return. I wonder, do you work on the graveyard shift from monday till friday? all of your posts that I noticed during those days were early in the morning, around 7:00 or 8:00 am. on saturday you write at 3:00 pm. Anyways, I enjoy this banter; I'm not, of course trying to purposefully rile you. That would be unnecessarily uncivilized. However, I am not the only one who is completely and totally intransigent about something. Have you ever heard the question "when an unstoppable force meets the immovable object, What happens?" well, you are the unstoppable force, and I'm the immovable object: you try to convince me with your "undeniable" logic and I am the immovable, intransigent object: I know my position well, and your written repertoire of persuasion cannot convince me to abandon my view. Just to let you know. I'll keep writing as long as you do. even if I miss a day or two, I'll always be back to counter your points on my posts and every time you write back. you are not convincing me away from my position. your might as well be talking to a brick wall that responds the opposite to what you say when you speak. I will enjoy hearing your new diatribe.
I haven't actually "come up with" anything yet. Everything I've posted is well-established repudiation of your tired, indefensible advocacy. I'll let you know when I have to actually work to undercut some point you think you've made.
On the contrary, it seems every time I present the truth to you, you come up with another vacuous rationalization for offensive behavior. What other kinds of transgressions do you work so hard to defend?
My giving you the truth isn't going to help you defend the indefensible.
So in other words, you're not actually understanding what you're reading, and just putting out random defenses for offensiveness in response.
Can we stop talking about the discussion now, and get back to the issue? Or is this another tactic of yours to deflect attention away from the indefensible comments you posted?
I think it isn't a legal question. But, if scouts are trying to make kids more well rounded, they have failed in making leaders of tomorrow to be less open minded about people who are different. Basically, they are teaching intolerance. What a shame.
Correct, it is not a legal question. Does the BSA have an obligation to make their constituents "open minded"? The intolerance issue is moot, Rich. Read my #1274 - Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:12 PM EDT posting.
Rich you must not have small children. I hope.
rich- more numb type (blunt) "thinking".
I see your point about withholding special privileges, however, where exactly, does the Constitution spell out this entitlement for you? I'm trying to follow your logic path. I assume that you are basing your argument on the last part of the 1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. If that is the case, then it is a right, not an entitlement, to ask the Federal Government to change it's treatment of the BSA.
Churches can determine membership, eligibility for communion, etc. and still maintain a 501(c) status, but BSA cannot? Is that what you're saying?
Start here: 36USC309
Churches are also not allowed to discriminate in hiring, and still accept federal considerations such as those afforded to the BSA.
You still didn't answer the question. I'm not seeing a lot of special privileges in your legal reference:
36 USC § 30901 - Organization
(a) Federal Charter.— Boy Scouts of America (in this chapter, the “corporation”) is a body corporate and politic of the District of Columbia.
(b) Domicile.— The domicile of the corporation is the District of Columbia.
(c) Perpetual Existence.— Except as otherwise provided, the corporation has perpetual existence.
36 USC § 30902 - Purposes
The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916.
36 USC § 30903 - Governing body
(a) Executive Board.— An executive board composed of citizens of the United States is the governing body of the corporation. The number, qualifications, and term of office of members of the board are as provided in the bylaws. A vacancy on the board shall be filled by a majority vote of the remaining members of the board.
(b) Quorum.— The bylaws may prescribe the number of members of the board necessary for a quorum. That number may be less than a majority of the entire board.
(c) Committees.—
(1) The board, by resolution passed by a majority of the entire board, may designate 3 or more members of the board as an executive or governing committee. A majority of the committee is a quorum. The committee, to the extent provided in the resolution or bylaws, may—
(A) exercise the powers of the executive board in managing the activities of the corporation; and
(B) authorize the seal of the corporation to be affixed to papers that may require it.
(2) The board, by majority vote of the entire board, may appoint other standing committees. The standing committees may exercise powers as provided in the bylaws.
36 USC § 30904 - Powers
(a) General.— The corporation may—
(1) adopt and amend bylaws and regulations, including regulations for the election of associates and successors;
(2) adopt and alter a corporate seal;
(3) have offices and conduct its activities in the District of Columbia and the States, territories, and possessions of the United States;
(4) acquire and own property as necessary to carry out the purposes of the corporation;
(5) sue and be sued within the jurisdiction of the United States; and
(6) do any other act necessary to carry out this chapter and promote the purpose of the corporation.
(b) Limitations on Exercising Certain Powers.—
(1) The corporation may execute mortgages and liens on the property of the corporation only if approved by a two-thirds vote of the entire executive board at a meeting called for that purpose.
(2) The corporation may dispose in any manner of the whole property of the corporation only with the written consent and affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the corporation.
36 USC § 30905 - Exclusive right to emblems, badges, marks, and words
The corporation has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights.
36 USC § 30906 - Restrictions
(a) Profit.— The corporation may not operate for pecuniary profit to its members.
(b) Stocks and Dividends.— The corporation may not issue stock or declare or pay a dividend.
36 USC § 30907 - Annual and special meetings
(a) Annual Meetings.— The corporation shall hold an annual meeting at a time and place as provided in the bylaws. At the meeting, the annual reports of the officers and executive board shall be presented, and members of the board shall be elected for the next year.
(b) Special Meetings.— Special meetings of the corporation may be called on notice as provided in the bylaws.
(c) Quorum.— The number of members necessary for a quorum at an annual or special meeting shall be prescribed in the bylaws.
(d) Locations.— The members and the executive board may hold meetings and keep the seal and records of the corporation in or outside the District of Columbia.
36 USC § 30908 - Annual report
Not later than April 1 of each year, the corporation shall submit a report to Congress on the activities of the corporation during the prior calendar year.
This is where I have the most heartburn about the term "Entitlement" (thank you Wikipedia). Your entitlement infringes upon my rights.
Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1] Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.
Rights are often considered fundamental to civilization, being regarded as established pillars of society and culture,[2] and the history of social conflicts can be found in the history of each right and its development. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived."[1] The connection between rights and struggle cannot be overstated — rights are not as much granted or endowed as they are fought for and claimed, and the essence of struggles past and ancient are encoded in the spirit of current concepts of rights and their modern formulations.
An entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation. A "right" is itself an entitlement associated with a moral or social principle, such that an "entitlement" is a provision made in accordance with legal framework of a society. Typically, entitlements are laws based on concepts of principle ("rights") which are themselves based in concepts of social equality or enfranchisement.
In a casual sense, the term "entitlement" refers to a notion or belief that one (or oneself) is deserving of some particular reward or benefit[1]—if given without deeper legal or principled cause, the term is often given with pejorative connotation (e.g. a "sense of entitlement").
All Americans are entitled to have their government operate free from religious primacy.
No matter how much you try to deny it.
Your refusal to grant others their rights by claiming you have rights that trump theirs is offensive.
As is your claim that your rights are superior to mine.
I am passionate about this issue because I was a Scout. Many of my Scout friends were gay, and yet they accepted the personal responsibility to leave Scouting when they realized their sexual orientation was going to be an issue, especially a dear friend of mine who left rather than risk any misunderstandings. It was a painful decision for both of us.
Free from religious primacy? Here's a think piece that is worth the time to read:
I'm not claiming that the rights of homosexuals are superior to yours or mine. I'm clearly explaining why their rights are just as valid as yours or mine, and therefore why bigotry toward them (such as that which you are defending) is inexcusable by any entity with a federal charter.
Yet you are telling me that their rights are superior in that they must be allowed violate a private organization's membership requirements.
Government support for BSA is dwindling -- what is in the US Code for BSA that is any more generous than other Federal Charters?
If the KKK and Occupy are both protected under US law (and both have been defended by the ACLU to preserve their rights) why must BSA be forced to change?
I am truly sorry that bigotry and hatred exist in the world, but as all adults know (or should realize) it does exist. Your Utopian Society does not exist, nor is it likely to exist in our lifetimes.
I'm telling you that someone's rights to enjoy the benefits of our free society trump the petty preferences of a group that wants to engage in bigotry. Bigotry is not a right, despite your claims to the contrary.
The BSA must change or renounce its special privileges. Let it become just like Occupy, with no special privileges, if it wishes to continue its immorally intolerant conduct.
By the way -- DoD no longer supports BSA Jamborees. BSA has a new, privately funded facility.
While supporting the BSA Jamboree at Fort A.P. Hill was ruled to be unconstitutional (Sect. 2554 of Title 10 USC) the military lost a training opportunity for humanitarian missions.
This is ridiculous.
Just like NAACP members, your local church has a like thinking congregation, my gynecologist sees women,/girls, if I went to a political conference, I would pick my party, I could go on but my point is....Many people choose to be with "like minded" people, groups and affiliations. That does not make them mean spirited or hateful. It is normal to want to be where you are accepted and join people you are comfortable with.
I do not ask people if they like doggie style, or whips and chains...those are their sexual preferences. Just like same sex actions. Your sex life is your business, if I do not want to associate with you that is MY RIGHT and MY BUSINESS.
Bigots are bigots. Look how long it took to abolish slavery, or to give women the right to vote. Oppression still survives in the free world.
It's GOOD. "Homosexuality" is an utter waste and a ruin for ones Character. Look at -any- 'extreme' "homosexual" and tell me with a --straight face-- that "they" do not 10,000 share the same VOCAL CORDS. Will be a -shameful- day when BSA caves in on that one!
@Ron Berreman, Your idea doesn't 'count'. Because it DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. The 'Natural' doesn't need to concede to what is "unnatural". END OF TOPIC. Though, "You" Please Do 'continue on YOUR Way'. Nothing 'bigotry' about it. You are for that 'cause' and their-for are willing to rip the kitchen sink out from the wall to THROW IT at "Your enemy"/ which is, the COUNTER VIEW. 'sorry for you/ your type/.
I am so sick and tired of Gay's demanding this and demanding that, You dont see any of us wanting to "Join" their Gay rallies or go to their Gay Bars do you? If I had a club, and I didnt want Gay people in it, Its My Decision, Same as the Gay people not wanting me in their Gay Clubs, Just so sick of all the different religions, and race's and Gays being "Offended" by the Majority of the people. They Need to get a FU&%IN Life of their own !
I'm sure homosexuals are "sick and tired" of being the target of marginalization such as that you're directing at them.
The difference is that they're right and you're wrong. Their expectation of being treated fairly and justly is legitimate, while your expectation to be free from having to respect the rights of others is not.
How about our rights to be treated fairly and justly?
Bret
I'm a straight male that has been in a gay bar or two, and a gay party. I was always with a woman and never once did I get the feeling I wasn't wanted.
Bigotry is not a right. Justice doesn't demand you have the ability to behave in an immorally intolerant manner.
Jerry sandusky would make a great merit badge counselor. They could meet in his basement
Signing off permanently. I've wasted too much time with this. To those with whom there have been decent, civil discussions thank you. To those who just got nasty -- not so much fun talking with you.
Hard to imagine why people wouldn't respond civilly to your bigotry.
Seriously, it really quite amazing that those who peddle and practice bigotry are surprised by the negative appraisals of such conduct.
I so tired of hearing the GLBC saying me me me. What about what we want for our kids? Im not saying we need to hate each other but respect each others opinions.
Should blacks and Jews respect the opinions of the KKK?
Finally, someone stands for values! I applaud you Boy Scouts of America for making a stand for wholesome values. This issue is not about discrimination, hatred or favoritism. It is about what is moral. Homosexuality is a perversion of what is normal and we should continue to make it known that this perversion is not acceptable.
Sure, if bigotry, hatred, and homophobia are what you value.
Morality is subjective, and your bigotry and homophobia are highly immoral -- and I would refuse to live by your so-called "morals".
Gays don't care about the acceptance of bigots like you; they just want equal treatment under the law -- which they will have, sooner rather later, as taxpaying, law-abiding citizens of this country who do not deserve to be treated as second-class.
At best it's a temporary win for the bigots, a view that most folks under 30 don't share. No wonder the BSA is losing more members every year. Looks like they'll be losing more corporate sponsors too.
I think it's great.Morality is a personal choice,not a concensus.This "everybodies doing it" thing is bull@!$%#,if you want to be gay,great that's your choice;if you don't like gays,great that is ALSO your choice.
I think it's great.Morality is a personal choice,not a consensus.This"everybodies doing it"thing is bull@!$%#.If you want to be gay,great; that's your choice.If you don't like gays,great; that is ALSO your choice.
they are free to teach children hatred bigotry and intolerance if they like but they'd also be wise to let the children know that those feelings will eventually produce internal self hatred and misery. And if any of them ask me why I don't buy their cookies I'll tell them why in no uncertain terms.
Just don't confuse the girls who sell the cookies with the BSA.
In sharp contrast to the BSA, the Girl Scouts are very ethical and not bigoted, maybe because the organization is secular and isn't run by Mormons and Southern Baptists.
I think it is EXTREMELY funny how much they push down the gay community for being gay. Why don't they give the boys lie detector tests to ensure that they are virgins? Adultery is a sin too.
I agree that this is a private organation and has the right to choose who they want in there organation. its no different than Elks or Eagles clubs who require a member to beleave in God to become a member. if Gay and Lesbian people want to start a club of there own with there own rules they may do so with my blessings but. leave the boy scouts, and girl scouts alone and let them deside who may or may not become a member simpily because thay have rights too.
No one forces you to join the Boy Scouts. You join of your own accord, and if you do, you agree to their code. The Scouts are not forcing their beliefs on you. Stop trying to force your beliefs on them!!
The real problem is; they are hypocrites that promote hate.
I don't agree J-Oregon. The BSA had their rules set decades ago and have decided to stick with those rules. Much of it has to do with liability. No club or school would send a straight male on an outing with girls. This is not as simple as you make it out to be.
Since I have chaperoned outings with girls, I question the validity of this:
What has hit the news is not a gay man with the boys but a gay woman leading a troop.
Since child molesters are often (usually) straight, not gay, your argument is full of holes.
Odd, the Girl Scouts don't have the problem.
It is simply a hate issue, hiding behind religion.
They don't care if someone is an adulterer.
They don't care if someone covets.
They will let most any sin pass, just not sexual orientation, which is determined at birth.
JOregon:
Then why in the world would you ever want to join such a group? You can claim hate and hypocrisy all you wish, but the fact of the matter is that neither of those attributes are illegal.
God forbid that the thought police ever try and make them such, because there are plenty of things I hate without reservation.
As I said, no one forces you to join. The Boy Scouts have a code that their members have agreed to abide by and they do so of their own accord.
If you don't like the code, don't join, but quit trying to force "your beliefs" on a group that is not trying to force their beliefs on you.
Well said,
People can start their own group if they don't agree with the code.
Everyone is trying to push their own agenda or belief to others.This is a sue happy nation. The only one who's winning are the lawyers.
If someone doesn't like what they're watching on tv, don't complain about it. Just change the channel or turn it off.
Take it elsewhere
CNR
I was in the scouts as a child. I have no need to be in their group. Neither of my sons wanted to be scouts.
My main complaint, as a Christian, is against those that tarnish the name of Christ.
These people do just that.
To claim Christ as their basis then promote hate is against everything Jesus taught.
To ban gays and allow adulterers is complete hypocrisy.
The ONLY people Jesus was hard on was the religious hypocrites.
J Oregon, either you are very naive or you think I am. There's a big difference between sending a straight man out on a camp with little girls versus 16, 17, 18 year old young ladies. Ditto a gay man with young men of the same age.
Pedophiles like little kids. I don't think someone attracted to a person who has reached or is reaching adulthood is a pedophile. Otherwise all those screaming 40 year old mom's freaking out over Twighlight are in real trouble.
My earlier point was that it's just not good form to send an adult out camping with those to whom he/she may be attracted to.
When the BSA gets sued, my guess is the gay rights lobby will be no where to be found. It's all about rights and no responsibility.
Savant
First of all I am a STRAIGHT man with 4 children (2 of each, all grown now). I chaperoned for my daughters groups, when they were young.
Secondly if you look up at the story it was a gay woman, Jennifer Tyrrell, who was ousted as a den mother for her son's Cub Scout troop.
Do you have a problem with a GAY woman leading a Cub Scout Troop??? That seems to go against what you think is safe.
If we follow your logic all Den mothers should be Lesbians.
PS my mother was a great den mother and was not a lesbian.
Thus the term "Pedophile".
Third, since most abusers at least CLAIM to be straight there should be more problems with men that claim to be straight as opposed to those that are openly gay.
So, YES, you are naive.
Oregon, you are deliberately missing the point. First, I don't care about the den mother, I think I already said that. This is not about that specific case.
Second, if you think don't think any gay adult male has ever made a pass at an older teenage male, I've got a bridge to sell you. No different than a straight adult male would make a pass at a teenage girl.
Third, if you can explain how letting gay men out on camping trips with teenage males is not a lawsuit waiting to happen, I'd appreciate reading it.
Fourth, it is a fact that abusers of young children often claim to be straight. HOWEVER, the rules are different when it comes to older teenagers being abused/accosted by adult males. I'd give you the names of at least 5 men I know today who were traumatized by adult gay men as teenagers but that is a violation of their privacy. The gay band "Bronski Beat" did an album called "Age of Consent" in the 80's, replete with the legal ages of young boys who can have sex with men in each country printed right on the album. This got a bit of press. And stories of gay men going to Mexico and preying on young boy prostititues, desperate for money, are common knowledge.
Let's not kid each other.
Savant
There are severe flaws in your reasoning.
The main reason why this is in the news is because a lesbian was a scout leader, totally accepted by the members of the troop, but forced out by the BSA hierarchy.
By the logic you have given the only SAFE person to lead a troop is an openly gay woman.
You have to worry about a Hetero woman seducing boys.
You have to worry about a married pedophile.
You have to worry that an openly gay man might be attracted to one of the boys.
So therefore a lesbian is the ONLY SAFE CHOICE.
So while you may not care about this lesbian woman, the BSA does. They made this decision based on HER ORIENTATION. The BSA decision is very much about her particular case.
Since the BSA has made this decision relating to a Lesbian it is obvious the reasons for this decision are not the same ones you seem to be imagining.
For every one of your gay men hitting on boys I can give you at least 5 examples of "straight" men assaulting boys.
Personally I'd much rather be hit on than raped.
So let's not kid each other.
Nobody is perfect. Certainly there are gays that behave badly, but those that claim to be straight have a much higher rate of sexual assault.
I would really be surprised if most of those men going to Mexico were openly gay. My guess is they were individuals living the straight life going to Mexico where they can be incognito. Much like the many straight men going to Thailand.
JOregon:
The Scout oath applies to leaders as well. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? Can you cite even one example where a Scout leader was having an openly adulterous affair, and was allowed to continue as a Scout leader?
I bet you can't. I bet you're making a big assumption on that one. Now, that's not to say that there has never been a Scout leader that has had an affair. I'm not saying that at all. There is always going to be a segment of a given population that will be hypocrites.
But guess what? I don't want THEM as Scout leaders either.
And the hate mantra works both ways. You hate the Scouts because they will not adopt your beliefs. So, the bottom line is that you're just as big a hater as you claim the Scouts to be.
Would you want your 14 year old daughter sleeping in a tent with a 16 year old boy? If not, why not? If you can't see why this is a bad idea, then no amount of logic and reason will ever dissuade your delusions. You will never understand why boys that are openly homosexual should never be allowed in Scouts.
I find it hypocritical that the BSA wants to continue to ban gays, while covering up the sexual abuse committed by scoutmasters and other BSA personnel for so many years.
Erin: Please give some examples. And then show where that abuse was allowed to continue after being discovered and the Scout leader was allowed to continue being a leader. I challenge you to provide even one example of that happening.
There will always be some bad apples. The irony of your position is apparently if abuse is taking place anyway, then that's a perfect justification for allowing gay boys to be in close proximity to straight boys in a private organization. It's as if you're precluding that abuse is going to take place anyway, so why deny just one group from having that advantage. Talk about twisting logic into a pretzel to make a case. Wow.
But I guess using your logic, one must be able to determine in advance with absolute certainty how an individual is going to behave prior to becoming a leader. Even you know that is an impossibility.
However, in the case of homosexuals, we know in advance that their sexual orientation drives them to be attracted to other males and they can not stop that. It doesn't matter if those other males are straight. The attraction still exists.
As I said, if you don't want your 14 year old daughter sleeping in a tent on a camp out with a 16 year old boy, then you are being discriminatory toward that 16 year old boy on the assumption (and rightfully so) that he may make advances, either wanted, or unwanted, toward your 14 year old daughter.
The BSA is not a social experiment to make liberals feel better about themselves because of some guilt about "fairness".
The Scouts are a private organization and the Supreme Court has upheld their right of free association. If you don't agree with that, then go start your own "Gay Scouts of America. Just don't count on too many straight boys wanting to join.
Erin after reading through posts I stopped here for I myself would like to read of an example to lay validity to your claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouting_sex_abuse_cases#United_States
http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/368186/group/Opinion/
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/14/nation/la-na-scouts-20120615
Seems like it's a bit more than just "some bad apples," CNR. And it certainly illustrates the hypocrisy of the BSA to state that being gay goes against their "moral code," but being a pedophile/child molester doesn't. But I suppose it's nothing new for a group with such "traditional, conservative values".
Erin: If you do the math, using the numbers in your own post, and divide 2,000 by 4,000,000, you come up with a number of .0005 percent. Even if the numbers are double or triple that, it's still way less than 1%
And so, yeah, with 4 million, I'd say that percentage represents a few bad apples. And you can also bet that many of those 2000 were also repeat offedners, so it's really even less than that.
Your implication that the Scouts condone such behavior is a flat out LIE. Yet you use such examples to justify gays being allowed to join the Scouts. Why? What does one have to do with the other? The Scouts have gone to great lengths to prevent abuse, and yet you still act as if they secretly want such abuse to occur. And in your mind, since that's the case, then gays should be allowed to join as well since you apparently believe the Scouts to be nothing but a sex cesspool.
Not one of your examples met the standard of any Scout leader being allowed to continue being a leader after being caught. In fact, I'd say that it really irks you that the Scouts implemented a program and background checks to thwart such individuals. I mean after all, if the Scouts do a good job of keeping perverts out, then that kind of takes away your whole argument for allowing such perversion in Scouts doesn't it.
But then again, any entity that even trys to hold a moral position that liberals disagree with is an affront to those that support degeneracy and perversion.
By the way, you still didn't address your daughter sleeping in the tent with a boy? Why are you avoiding that comparison.
So I guess that makes is all right to you, since there were only a "few bad apples". I guess you feel the same way about teachers who sexually abuse students, too, since they account for only about 1-5% of all teachers.
THAT is a flat-out LIE. The BSA never "went to great lengths to prevent abuse" -- they went to great lengths to keep the abuse covered up. They refused to even provide information on the sexual abuse until they were ordered to do so by the courts. Furthermore, they did not even implement the Youth Protection Program until AFTER they lost that Oregon case.
We don't know if they were allowed to continue being a leader after being caught; that is not an allegation I ever made, it was a question YOU raised.
ROFLMAO! "Background checks"? If you read their own website on the Youth Protection Program, their "background checks" are laughable at best, and pathetic at the very least:
http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/HealthandSafety/GSS/gss01.aspx
So they admit it: they have no "screening" process, so the likelihood that another abuser could be a scout leader is hardly nil.
Really, CNR, perhaps YOU should learn how to do research before you embarrass yourself further.
Sure, promoting child abuse, ignorance, bigotry, and homophobia are "moral positions" worthy of being upheld. /sarc
My daughters have gone to sleepovers with boys, and nothing happened. You see, CNR, my daughters were raised with moral values, and we did it without a bible (imagine that). They were also taught self-defense, so any boy that tried anything with any one of them would find it difficult to walk afterward, to say the least.
CNR
Yes I can.
The Scouts have leaders that have previously divorced their spouse and married another.
Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
Mark 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
It takes 2 to tango. You are talking about 2 gay boys getting together...Guess what! If they are not going to do it at scouts they will do it somewhere else.
As kids we often camped with mixed groups. Never had a problem while camping. When we were picking beans or berries, or swimming and water skiing, or walking home from school, that was when the problems arose.
CNR
If you allow Gays into the scouts you might also have a "few bad apples", but I seriously doubt it would be anywhere near those numbers that don't seem worry you.
JOregon:
Show me a concrete example with names. You seem to just assume that if someone gets divorced they are already in an affair with someone else. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I bet you can't cite me a real life example.
Beyond that, the Scout oath says "I will do my best". It doesn't say I will never fail to live up to the tenants set forth by that oath. Doing your best does not mean you will never fail. It is a goal to strive for, not an absolute guarantee.
The liberal logic says that if you can't guarantee 100% compliance by every member of the 4 million scouts and leaders, then the whole oath thing should just be thrown out. Why is it that liberals are always more than willing to apply a certain standard to someone else, but never willing to apply that same standard to themselves?
And then somehow, that logic gets twisted into an argument that says since Scouts don't live up to their own standards all of the time, it should justify them throwing out all of their beliefs about sexuality and allow openly homosexual boys to join. How you get from point A to point B on that one is beyond me.
Stop trying to force your beliefs on an organization which you have no obligation to join.
I bet you have no problem with all black, hispanic or muslim groups do you? A few years back, a white congressman tried to join the black congressional caucus. They denied him membership. Bet you don't have a problem with that at all do you? I bet that discrimination is just fine with you.
Why don't you go try and force muslims to accept openly homosexual men into their religion? Seems it's only certain groups that you don't approve of that must bow and scrape to the politically correct liberal mantra. Everyone else is free to discriminate if they wish, but not the Scouts. If someone tried to force any of the groups I just mentioned to allow membership by someone they don't wish to accept, you'd hear crickets chirping in the liberal camp. They wouldn't say a word about it.
According to the bible if you divorce and then remarry you are in an adulterous marriage.
Are you claiming there are no divorced then remarried people in the scouts?????
I am sorry but the scouts, like most any organization has people on their second, 3rd, and even 4th or more marriages.
The real question is how many aren't divorced and remarried.
The husband and the wife are BOUND together until death do they part:
1 Corinthians 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
1 Corinthians 7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
Like many religious organizations the BSA picks and chooses what parts of the bible they like and ignores those passages they don't like. There are excuses but what it really gets down to is they have created their own kind of a gospel.
I am a Christian and my opposition to the BSA is based on the harm they do to the body of Christ.
They teach hate and rejection, that is not Christ.
You shouldn't bet when you don't know the opposition.
JOregon: The Scouts do not, and never have, required a belief in Christ, or even a Christian God. What they require is a belief in God with the understanding that different religious groups have different beliefs. You are free to believe how ever you wish, but the basic concept is that you believe in a higher power.
They reject the homosexual lifestyle. True. They view it as a morally corrupt. True. And they have every right to hold those beliefs.
On the other hand, you define rejection as hate. They have no hate toward homosexuals. You will find nothing in any Scout literature condemning homosexuals in any way. Rejection is not hate.
Let me put it another way. You reject the Scouts. Does that mean you are a hater as well? And if so, then your hatred is just as harmful to the body of Christ as you claim the Scouts to be. You can't have it both ways.
If you reject the Scouts, and yet don't call yourself a hater, then why can't that same logic and standard be applied to the Scouts with their rejection?
And I would like a direct answer to my analogy of any other group that rejects someone based on a skin color or belief. As I said, there are groups that are only for black people; groups that are only for hispanic people; and groups that are only for muslims.
Are all of those groups haters as well? I know this logic is tough for you. You can't bring yourself to apply the same standard to other groups that you apply to the Scouts because no self respecting liberal could bring themselves to call a black or hispanic group "haters". No, when it comes to some groups, liberals start back peddling and making excuses as to why they should be allowed to discriminate, but only if it's a group that is protected by liberal political correctness. Any other group is fair game, and it's always open season on them.
As I said, I suspect you can't apply consistent logic to all groups, you have to pick and choose. In fact, I think I've just proven that you can't even apply the same standard to yourself.
CNR
Contradicts
Many religions, many people that believe in a higher power, have absolutely no problem with same sex relationships. It is mostly a Christian issue.
Founder Robert Baden-Powell:
--"We aim for the practice of Christianity in their everyday life and dealings, and not merely the profession of theology on Sundays…"--
That was the foundation.
As the group grew he became more open to other beliefs. Something the Scouts should do today concerning gays. Especially since our knowledge has grown to where we now know it is something someone is born into.
Here in the USA the Scouts may claim to be open to other religions but they focus almost entirely on Bible based standards.
When you reject someone because of how they were born ... it is hate.
People don't choose to be gay, almost all gays that I have known would rather have been straight. If they were raised in a loving environment they can accept themselves and be happy. Being Gay, is a huge burden because of the REJECTION of others.
Rejection is not love. Acceptance of others is love.
Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
You misunderstand my issue with the Scouts. They harm the body of Christ because they are hypocrites that have taken a very anti-Christian stand.
At no time in the bible are Christians told to point out the sins of those in the secular world. We are told to love our neighbor not reject them.
Today all sorts of people have taken up an agenda to reject gays. They wish to impose their personal beliefs upon their fellow man.
I don't hate the Scouts. I was a Scout for a short time. When I was a Scout we tried to include people. Today the Scouts seek to exclude people.
Those groups are created because of a unique characteristic.
To equate that with the Scouts, you are saying that the Scouts are only for Anti-Gay people. You are saying that is the basis for Scouting.
While I am somewhat Liberal I am also somewhat Conservative.
I am pro-life, of course that seems to me to be a more liberal concept. How is it so many PETA/Vegans are pro-abortion? Abortion kills a living creature.
I remain single because I am divorced (16 years). The bible tells me I cannot remarry as long as my ex lives.
If accepting others for who they are is Liberal then I guess I am Liberal.
I would think Conservatives would want people to not interfere in the lives of others when they cause no harm or hindrance to anyone else.
WRONG. The BSA have rejected boys who said they were atheists, as well as boys who refused to say the word "God" in the oath.
The BSA has also rejected entire religions, simply because they affirm and promote the value and dignity of all people.
Erin: Ummm what part of "require a belief in God" did you not understand?
JOregon:
So, do you reject pedophiles who will tell you they were born that way and have always been attracted to children? If so, then by your own definition, you are a hater. Would you let a known pedophile babysit your 10 year old son? If not, you are a hater. It makes no difference that pedophilia is against the law. The law does not give you absolution to your hate.
You see JOregon, everyone has a limit and a point at which they will "hate". Your limit is different than mine, but that does not make it any more valid or acceptable as long as neither violates the law. Mine does not.
The same reasons for which you would not let a pedophile babysit your son are the same reason Scouts do not want to accept openly homosexual boys. If NAMBLA sent a babysitter to your house, the same alarm bells that go off that warn you of harm to your child, are the same alarms that go off with the Scouts. Do you understand that JOregon, the alarms are the EXACT same ones. The Scouts are not a sexual experiment for liberals to use so they can feel better about themselves.
You are not able to accept that gay scouts would be pursing, and unfortunately, in some cases, successfully molesting boys. You wish to stick your head in the sand and pretend that it won't happen because your sense of what is "fair" overpowers logic and common sense. The fact is that you want to use the Scouts to prove to homosexuals how accepting you are of them, while conveniently not having to accept any of the responsibility of what would happen to an 11 year old who was raped by a homosexual Scout.
That logic and common sense is exactly the reason why the Scouts will not allow openly homosexual boys to join. They know that common sense dictates that it would be inviting trouble. The Scouts are not some social experiment for liberals to prove how much self control homosexuals can exert when in the company of straight boys. But that's exactly what liberals are trying to make it. It's all about..."see, I told you there wouldn't be any problems." And that's fine when it's not YOUR son's protection on the line. It's fine when YOU'RE not the leader who will face a lawsuit if something happens. No, it's always much easier to tell someone else what they should or shouldn't accept when you will face no repercussions from that assertion.
I never said they did. I believe they are born that way as well. And for that matter, there are certainly some closet homosexual boys in the Scouts right now. Of course, those boys don't believe in the Scout law, they are just there for the fun of it, or will pretend they believe the law, but have already proved that they don't by lying about themselves to begin with.
Last I checked, someone could not help being born white either, so using your logic, any group that accepts only blacks or hispanics because of skin color, which could not be helped, are hate groups. Using your logic, then white groups who accept only whites are not hate groups if the skin color condition is the same condition used by blacks or hispanics who discriminate on skin color or ethnicity. Using your logic, it is fine to reject someone because of a skin color you were born with, but not a sexual orientation. I call BS on that one. You can't have it both ways.
I was born with a repulsion to homosexuality. Do you understand that JOregon? I was BORN that way. No one forced that on me. I can not help it. I was born that way. I had NO choice.
Funny, I'll bet you'll tell me I have a choice not to be that way, even after I've just told you I was BORN that way, and then you'll will tell me homosexuals don't have a choice. Again, you can't have it both ways.
No one forces you to join the Scouts. If you join with the full intent of not accepting what they believe, then it is YOU forcing YOUR beliefs on them, not the other way around. Don't join if you don't agree with what they believe.
As you have seen JOregon, I can easily turn your own arguments against you and use your own logic to prove that your viewpoint is hypocritical. I won't even mention Matthew 7:1. If you adhere to that scripture, then you shouldn't ever say anything about anyone regardless of how you feel. So please, stop trying to tell me what I should or shouldn't believe. I am not trying to tell you what you should or shouldn't believe.
The Scouts are not telling you what to believe, they are only saying that if you don't accept what they believe, then you are not welcome in their group. Simple as that. And you have no right to demand that they accept your beliefs if they go against those of the Scouts.
We have a First Amendment right that protects both you and me to have whatever beliefs we choose. You are able to act on those beliefs to the extent that they do not violate existing law. If that is abolished to force your beliefs, (or my beliefs), on everyone, then we have lost the First Aamendment altogether and all will be forced to believe something dictated by the state. I don't think either of us would like that.
We may not agree on much, but surely we can at least both agree on that. (Well, that and being pro-life)
CNR
Pedophiles are not in a consenting relationship with an adult capable of making their own decisions. BIG DIFFERENCE.
A better comparison:
Do you reject people that don't have your skin color?
Do you reject left handed people? Or, if you are a lefty, right handed people?
Color Blind?
Opposite sex?
Just because someone is different than you it does not give you the right to reject them.
If they are harming others that is another story.
If Mary and Ann decide to spend their lives together how does that harm you? Roy and Silo?
Do you understand most Pedophiles are heterosexual? Most are like Sandusky, married or in a relationship with a woman.
Seems you are already making that experiment. Talk about your head stuck in the sand.
Common sense would be to only have Lesbians leading the scouts because then there is no risk. Since the numbers say heterosexual men are the most common pedophiles they should be the LAST choice, if you are looking at common sense.
--face palm--
You might be a latent Homosexual. I don't say this as an insult or anything like that. There has been a serious study that has shown the most homophobic are aroused by gay sex;
Here is a link, from the US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health:
Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?
Nothing to be ashamed of, but you need to come to grips with it or it might tear you apart.
There are many examples of this such as:
Ordained Southern Baptist; George Rekers. Caught with his boy toy while vacationing in Europe without his wife and children.
I won't list any more but the list of those that were caught being gay pretending to be anti-gay is very long.
The problem is they have a Federal Charter. That is the game changer. Now if they were to give up that Charter it would be a different story.
Why won't they do that?
If they want total control they have to remove themselves from having Federal Privileges.
FAIL
Eliminate that Federal Charter THEN you can do what you want.
Until then you have to answer to the rest of the people in this nation.
JOregon:
You don't have to be an adult to be a pedophile. If you are molesting a minor child of the same sex, you are a pedophile by definition, regardless of whether it's consensual or not. It doesn't matter if you also have sex with women, are married or have children. Stop pretending that homosexuals are somehow superhuman and able to suppress their attraction to others simply by wishing to do so. That is no more possible for them than it is for you or anyone else. You're born that way, remember.
Oh really? So I must accept your beliefs, but even within the context of a private organization that you have no obligation to be a part of, you don't have to accept mine...is that the way it works? Beyond that, the Supreme Court says that if you are a private organization, then you absolutely have the right to reject someone because they do not adhere to your standards. Like it or not, that is absolutely a right that the court has upheld. A private group absolutely has that right. As a member of a private group, I do NOT have to accept your beliefs on anything. And you do NOT have the right to force your beliefs on me. The court says so. Sorry, you'll just have to deal with it.
Oh please, this is such a tired argument, and so easy to defeat. Here, let me show you: If you are repulsed by murder, does that make you a possible latent murderer? If you are against rape, does that make you a possible latent rapist? This argument that if you are repulsed, or are against something must mean it's only because you secretly want to be those things yourself is really stupid beyond belief.
The Scouts get no taxpayer dollars: They are totally self sufficient through dues and donations from private individuals and private charities. The only taxpayer funded facilities they use are the same ones available to ANY group, such as a school room to hold meetings, or public parks to hold activities. Please show me a law that requires any private group to abandon their beliefs because they have a Federal Charter, or use public facilities. It does NOT exist. Stop pretending it does.
A Federal Charter does not require ANY private group to subvert their beliefs to the Federal Government. If your argument is correct, then the Supreme Court would not have said private groups have the right to reject someone based on their beliefs. You're really grasping at straws here JOregon.
Wrong. As long as they operate within existing law, private groups do NOT have to answer to anyone, regardless of whether they have a Federal Charter or not. Using your logic, the only beliefs anyone would be allowed to have are those dictated by the Federal Government. That, by definition, would mean you believe in a fascist state. The United States of America, is not a fascist state. Private groups have the freedom of association of like minded individuals, regardless of whether you like it or not.
Please stop trying to force your beliefs on a group that fully complies with existing Federal law, but does not accept your beliefs.
JOregon: Correction to the first paragraph: It should have read, if you are molesting a minor child regardless of their sex...
CNR
It doesn't matter. MOST pedophiles are not openly gay - Remember the ones you want banned? Most pedophiles claim to be straight - Remember the ones you want to limit membership to?
I am very attracted to women. I all honesty when I was younger I embraced the 60's-70's mantra "free love baby". It was always consensual. I didn't get married until '82. I didn't become a Christian until the late 80's. I was divorced 16 years ago. As a Christian I know I can never remarry as long as my ex lives. That doesn't stop the desire. With the exception of a one year relationship that ended about 10 years ago I have never ACTED upon that desire. The woman I did have the relationship with was an old friend that wanted me to see if I could talk her husband into not divorcing her. He was determined and she probably needed me for comfort - rebound. It was good for both of us.
The key here is ACTING upon your attraction. Those most likely to ACT UPON their attraction are the ones who claim to be straight.
Drop the Federal Charter, then there is no problem.
I don't have a problem with Chick-fil-A. They are a private company, they don't have a Federal Charter, they are anti gay. If I had been eating there I might choose not to but I haven't eaten anything there since the 80's. I personally wasn't that impressed. When I go for fast food I prefer Subway, heavy on the veggies.
Trying to compare sexual attraction to murder and rape - WOW.
Now if murder and rape didn't hurt anyone...oh ya, people actually DO play out rape fantasies. Valentine's sex role-playing in Subaru ends in arrests
I simply gave you the information from a legitimate study. There are far too many so called straight homophobes that have been caught in compromising positions.
Top 15 Anti-Gay Activists Caught Being Gay
George Rekers
Pastor Eddie Long
Troy King
Richard Curtis
Ted Haggard
Glenn Murphy Jr.
David Dreier
Bruce Barclay
Roy Ashburn
Jim West
Etc
Have to go to work so just one last quick point, a Federal Charter allows them certain privlages, if it didn't why won't they drop the charter?
JOregon:
I don't want pedophiles banned, I want them in prison.
Personally, I don't care if they have a Federal Charter or not. As long as they are given the same access to public facilities that all other groups are given, it makes no difference to me. The Federal Charter does not give them any special recognition not bestowed on any other group that also has a Federal Charter. A Federal Charter does not give them any access to government funding of any kind. As far as I can tell, the only thing it does is provide recognition by the Federal Government that they exist as a private organization. If you want the Scouts to be denied access to public facilities because of their beliefs, then you must also deny any other group that discriminates on ANY basis. That includes many religious groups, all blacks only groups, all only groups etc. You can not make exceptions for some and not others. You must apply the law equally. That's what the Supreme Court did. You may not like it, you may not agree with it, but it is the reality of the Constitution.
Again, you have NO RIGHT to force your beliefs on a private group, regardless of whether they have a Federal Charter or not. The government has recognized the RIGHT of private groups to discriminate on the basis of belief. It's called the First Amendment. Fight to get the First Amendment repealed if you wish. I think you'll be fighting a losing battle.
I agree, all of those that you named are apparently closet homosexuals, or bi-sexual at the very least. And everyone of them are hypocrites if they claimed to be anti-gay. You see, I have no problem calling it like it is. On every one of the people you mentioned, we are in complete agreement.
But my analogy is still absolutely relevant. The logic of saying that being opposed to an action really means that you want to engage in the action is flawed beyond belief. You can not logically just apply it to one situation and then claim that it can't possibly be applied to any other simply because the action you are citing involves a sex component. Again, I call BS on that one.
CNR
You misunderstood what I was saying.
When I say most pedophiles are not openly gay - Remember the ones you want banned? I am saying you want the openly gay people banned - they are NOT the pedophiles.
Pedophiles generally appear to be straight, like Sandusky. You want to limit your membership to these people. Good outstanding straight guys, that are often hidden devils.
Openly Gay people are RARELY pedophiles. When you find a pedophile he has usually presented himself as straight, good with kids, and trustworthy.
If you really want to reduce the percentage of Pedophiles you should allow more openly Gay people in.
You are apparently OK with the KKK and NAMBLA having access to public facilities. I'm not. I don't believe any hate group be it the KKK or the BSA should have access to public facilities. Groups like NAMBLA shouldn't even exist let alone have access to public facilities, but if the BSA does so do they.
Just because someone is gay that doesn't mean their life revolves around sex. Some of the most successful people ever to live have been gay, obviously there is more to their life than getting laid.
On the other hand Pedophiles are focused on the hunt and capture of victims.
Pedophiles hunt in camouflage, they look "normal" they assume roles of trust like priest, pastor, teacher, coach, police officer, etc.
Except for the priests, they generally hide using a wife or girlfriend as their disguise.
There is very little to worry about with an openly gay person being a pedophile.
Married women have been showing up in the news seducing boys so they can't be trusted.
Literally the safest person to be leading the scout troop is a Lesbian, don't you agree?
Gays are generally much safer around children than straights so I call BS on your excuses.
CNR
I wanted to go back a little bit to my comment you might be a latent homosexual. It was in no way meant to be an insult or attack on your character.
We are taught either through society, parents, church, or some other way that being gay is bad. Don't touch, don't do, avoid avoid avoid.
What happens is if someone has at least some orientation toward people of the same sex (not necessarily you) it gets suppressed. They don't acknowledge it, they don't see it. That suppression turns into aversion, avoidance, and often hate.
Gay people are good people just like the rest of society. Sure there are some bad apples just as there are bad apples everywhere.
They love their parents, brothers and sisters, grandparents, etc. Those people love them back.
They have friends both straight and gay. The work in society and like anyone else they separate their sex life from the rest of their life.
Maybe you are not a latent homosexual but you do not know what great people some people are because you see them for their sex life (a tiny tiny part of them).
If you think about it, that way of thinking is twisted.
The Scouts could do a lot to tear down those fences, to let a variety of people establish relationships so that they don't have to be afraid or repulsed by the unknown.
That is one of the things I am hearing from you, you don't know gays so you are afraid of what they bring to the table.
They bring talent, brains, humor, kindness, humanity, honor, skill, and occasionally just the opposite. They are like the rest of us.
I feel sorry for you because you are missing out on some good friendships.
Back in the 60's there was a song written called Get Together.
The chorus:
Come on people now
Smile on your brother
Everybody get together
Try to love one another
Right now
Maybe it was because I was from that era that I don't hate people because of how they are born.
It is too bad people have forgotten how to love one another. The Church and the Scouts aren't helping.
JOregon:
The technical definition is splitting hairs a bit in my book. If an openly gay 17 year old Scout molests a 12 year old Scout. He is a pedophile in my book. In the end, the known or unknown sexual orientation of either of them is really pretty irrelevant.
Very true. You will never be able to eliminate all risk in life. But on the other hand, why would you openly invite more risk? Using the logic that since you will never be able to eliminate all risk, that it should somehow justify openly inviting more risk makes no sense to me.
Don't take this the wrong way: Would you let me take a shower with you? Would you? How about your drop dead gorgeous 16 year old daughter? Can I take a shower with her? Why would that make you feel uncomfortable? The thought does make you feel uncomfortable doesn't it? It should. It makes me feel uncomfortable just asking the question.
But the reason it makes you feel uncomfortable is because you know that I, as a straight male, am attracted to females. And I would say the vast majority of women would also feel uncomfortable at the thought. That's why we have separate shower facilities after all, isn't it? And that is one of many reasons that the Scouts do not want openly gay males in the Scouts. Straight males have no attraction to one another. If they do, then they are not straight.
So, we let gays in the Scouts. Do I have to let my 12 year old son shower with a 16 year old gay male? Am I a "hater" if I object to that? Remember, I'd love to take a shower with your 16 year old daughter. I promise, I'll conduct myself as a total gentleman. I can assure you, nothing will happen. You believe me don't you? And even if I do conduct myself as a total gentleman, it still makes your skin crawl doesn't it? At least if you have the natural parental instincts, it should.
Do we segregate it by sexual orientation? Well, we really can't do that because you can't put the gays in the same showers either. So, I guess we have to let the gays shower one by one, or build them separate single facilities at every Scout camp across the entire country.
The same with sleeping arrangements. I don't want my son sleeping in the same tent with an openly gay male scout. You can't have the openly gay scouts sleeping in the same tents either, so I guess that means that every gay scout will have to be required to sleep in a tent by themselves, while the straight scouts can tent with their friends.
These are just two of many scenarios I can think of which make the ban on openly gay scouts totally reasonable. At the end of the day, you can deny and downplay the sexual attraction factor all you wish, but pretending it doesn't exist, or that it won't make things very awkward in many situations is to deny the reality of human nature. It seems your sense of wanting gays to see how accepting you are of them, and how fair you want things to be, will outweigh the common sense nature of the situation.
But then again, you've fought for the "right" of gays to join the scouts. Funny thing though, now if something does happen, you won't have to be the one dealing with it will you? But your sense of "fairness" will be totally intact, and it will be someone else's fault that the 11 year old got raped by a gay 17 year old scout won't it? And someone else will have to be the one dealing with the lawsuits won't they?
The end result is that in order to allow openly gay scouts, then the focus of scouts by the very nature of that admission turns from the mission of character building to figuring out how to prevent unwanted advances from gay scouts. You can say it won't happen, but again, you have openly invited the risk, and since you have, your focus must deal with that risk.
Gotta run for the moment. I've got lots more, but if you want to take on any of what I've said so far, then be my guest.
CNR
Not sure why you want 17 year olds showering with 12 year olds.
If you are worried about sexual assault those showers shouldn't happen. That nice 17 year old boy, dating Mary Ann, could very likely be Jerry Sandusky Jr.
There is little risk from sexual assault from an openly gay person. Almost every single time the pedophile lives and acts straight.
That is the huge hole in your argument.
You live in fear of the unknown, it's time you changed that. Get to know your fellow man. The scouts could help eliminate the irrational fear so many like you have by mingling people.
You don't. Say the number of Scouts allowed in a group is 50. If you allow Gays to be part of that mix the risk goes down because a higher percentage of pervs are straight.
But you don't mind if he sleeps with Jerry Sandusky Jr?
Since that 17 year old perv is likely a heterosexual with a nice sweet girlfriend who does get blamed for that? You? People like you?
I gave a link to the song "Get Together". The people in that video have a better idea of the Love that Christ preached about than the Scouts, or the Churches today.
Love is lost and has been replaced by hate. What a sad generation.
Earlier I asked the question:
I'm sure you'll eventually get around to answering that. Here is more, I really do wonder why it is an issue for a lesbian, such as Jennifer Tyrrell, to lead a scout troop. Any thoughts?
CNR
I don't know if you have a 12 year old or not, but assuming you do.
What you are teaching him is to hate people because of how they were born.
As you said:
So you are repulsed by Gays. What happens when your son gets a little older and discovers he is Gay?
Do you think he is going to tell you?
Very likely he will suppress it. Maybe he will marry and sneak out for rendezvous with male prostitutes.
Maybe he will just hate you, for your inability to accept him.
When he comes home with the love of his life what are you going to do?
Are you going to keep him away from his 12 year old cousins?
Are you going to disown him?
Quit loving him?
That is the very real world of a gay child and a parent like you - and it can even be worse.
Drug usage is a big problem with the gay community, and no wonder. Parents that hate them. Former best friends become enemies. Teasing, bullying, and rejection. Drugs to escape, how can you blame them?
The churches and the scouts are part of the problem, when they should be part of the solution.
What if it is YOUR CHILD? If you have a 12 year old there is a very real possibility he could be gay.
JOregon:
That's the way it is in Scouting. If you are at a Scout camp, or on a camp out at a location that happens to have shower facilities, they all take showers whenever it is time, or necessary to do so. They don't segregate by age, because there is no need to do so. If all the Scouts are heterosexual, I have no worries about my son being molested. You seem to believe that every male is actually a molester in hiding. You seem to assume that every male is actually homosexual.
Pedophiles may live and act straight, but by definition, they are not straight. They are either bi or closet homosexuals.
You don't have to worry about me sexually assaulting you or your daughter either, but I noticed you totally avoided my shower question. The fact is that you wouldn't want me taking a shower with you or your daughter, even if there is no risk would you? The thought makes you uncomfortable doesn't it? Yet, you don't seem to have any problem wanting to force my son to do so if there are openly gay Scouts.
Why the double standard?
In fact, really, the basis of your whole gays in scouts argument is because of your desire to try and force those, such as myself, to ignore what was inborn to me. You do this to assuage the guilt you apparently feel on behalf of gays due to the fact that there are millions of people like me who will not accept your premise.
And yet, you still don't want your daughter taking a shower with me do you? Even thought there is no danger from me either.
Thankfully, the Scouts, myself, and the Supreme Court have all agreed that we have the power to prevent you from subverting our organizational and parental authority. I will not let you use my son as an experiment to make you feel better about yourself. You are totally free to do that with your own children if you wish, but not mine.
The reason, of course, that you don't want to take a shower with me, or me showering with your daughter is because you instinctively wish to avoid that. Those are totally natural feelings that you are trying to suppress to assuage that guilt you feel about people like me not wanting to expose my 11 year old son to openly homosexual men or boys.
On the other hand, when it comes to yourself, even with no danger of sexual assault, you don't want to put you or your daughter in that situation just based on the fact that you know I am attracted to females. Just knowing that fact makes you uncomfortable doesn't it? Even in the face of no physical danger. If you were honest about it you would admit that because it is a perfectly logical and natural human response. But to admit that; to be honest about that, blows your whole argument about admitting openly gay boys into Scouting right out of the water.
You have no problem subjecting my son to a standard that you would never apply to yourself. And that is the reason for the ban of gays in Scouting. It's also the same basis that girls are not allowed to join the Scouts. You can't insist that gays be allowed to join, and then act as if the sexual attraction of the gay Scout is totally irrelevant... unless, of course, you will also subject you and your daughter to the same standard. Given that you didn't want to address any of those points, I think that pretty much answers the question. The truth is that if you did subject yourself or your daughter to the same standard, you would be forcing yourself to do so against your own instincts, just to try and prove how "fair" you are.
Sorry, I don't buy it.
I don't understand why you can't see that the same reasons you don't want me taking a shower with you or your daughter are the same reasons I don't want my son in intimate settings with Scouts who are openly gay. Would you want boys in the Girl Scouts? I wouldn't, because of the exact same reasons.
My logic is based on the nature of the sexual attraction, and has nothing to do with the gender of the person.
Hmmm CNR you never did get an answer.
hey roc: Ya know, I really think she has a sincere desire. I can tell she is giving, what for her, is a heartfelt believe. I just don't happen to believe the same way. I just can't supress what, for me, is totally logical based on my born human nature so that gays will feel "accepted". I don't care what gays do in their own bedroom, I just don't tolerate them trying to force it on me when I have no desire to accept it. Tolerance only seems to work one way in the liberal world: What they accept, they tolerate.
That's why I always use the shower example. Very few, and I mean very few women could honestly say they have no problem letting their 16 year old daughter shower with a 54 year old man. And it is that example that shows why my logic is correct, because I have the same protective feelings about my son. In order for liberals to support their position, they must deny those very same feelings. That's why their argument is flawed and has no basis in logic or reason. It's always about emotions. They feel sorry that gays are not accepted in every manner imaginable. Its just in this case, they happen to want to use my son for the purposes of making themselves feel better. Sorry, not with my son.
CNR
I read your posts Friday night and was very bothered by them.
It seems I overestimated you. I thought you were an intelligent person, able to see logic, With an ability to comprehend. I thought you were paying attention to what I said.
I was wrong.
I have made it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR I am a Man.
#1303.8 - Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:47 PM PDT
#1303.23 - Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:35 PM PDT
#1303.31 - Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:00 AM PDT
PS, I am a 60 year old male. Just in case you still haven't figured it out yet.
Obviously something isn't clicking in your brain.
It doesn't bother me that you thought I was a woman, what bothers me is you can't seem to comprehend what is said. That was a big let down.
There is a HUGE difference in comparing males showering with girls and males showering with males.
At least in our society. In other societies not so much.
For instance in a nudist colony mixed showers wouldn't be a big deal.
In a similar manner your 12 year old is already showering with gay males. This not only happens in the Scouts, it happens in schools, public swimming pools, etc.
It is part of the normal acceptance in our society.
If it bothers you to have your 12 year old showering with a gay male then I'll repeat:
When you say:
You are living in dreamland, and due for a big fall. You have a HUGE misconception about pedophilia.
That is a common misconception. Pedophiles usually are not driven by a same sex attraction. They get their rocks off through humiliation, domination, fear, and power.
They know how humiliating it is for a straight male to be raped by another male. They get off on the humiliation, not the same sex relationship. If you don't understand that please read it again.
You have not answered my questions:
My other question revolves around your bigotry.
If your child is gay how are you going to deal with it?
My next point is REALLY important.
---Do you understand, if your son is gay, your hatred of gays could destroy him for life. It could be the cause of either one of you disowning the other. It could lead to drugs or suicide. Do you understand it could make him a "hidden" gay. Married but seeking high risk relationships on the side.---
Your hatred shows that you are not a Scout in your heart.
A Scout is:
Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful,
Friendly, Courteous, Kind,
Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty,
Brave, Clean, Reverent
When it comes to gays you are not helpful in their overcoming prejudice in the world.
You are not friendly, courteous, or kind to gays. You can't be, because you are repulsed by them.
I suspect you still can't understand my words.
I seriously doubt our conversation can go anywhere, I really had hoped you were a bit more aware than you are.
JOregon:
My apologies to you about your gender. It was unintentional.
Never the less, I will continue the discussion without resorting to personal attacks or insults as you have done.
Maybe in your mind, but not mine. My point is that the gender has nothing to do with it, but to you, it is the only thing that seems to matter. To me, it is the nature of the sexual attraction that is the key point. Not the gender.
But just to explore that a bit further, exactly what is the huge difference to you?
Please explain to me why the look and gender of a person is so much more important than the actual sexual attraction aspect contained in the mind?
In fact, what you are proposing is that the sexual attraction aspect apparently should be completely ignored for the sole reason of making someone feel accepted. The reality is that even you yourself would not apply that standard to everyone.
You have your own limits on where that line is drawn as well, don't you, JOregon? Why yes, yes I believe you do. In fact you mentioned a couple of them yourself: The KKK and NAMBLA. So I guess being intolerant is okay....as long as that intolerance meets your standards... but apparently not mine (or the Supreme Court's for that matter) Is that the way it works? Why is your intolerance acceptable, but my supposed intolerance is not?
The Supreme Court also recognized that there are limits as to what a group of people should be mandated by law as to what they must accept. Sexual orientation is not among those standards listed. If you are a business, then you must treat everyone equally in terms of consideration for employment regardless of race, color, creed or gender. Not sexual orientation. However, those standards do NOT apply to private non-business organizations. They have the absolute right to discriminate on any basis they choose.
That's why you have all black groups, all hispanic groups, all muslim groups, all women groups... and all liberal groups for that matter.
I bet you fully support the Girl Scouts intolerance of not allowing boys to join don't you?
The sexual attraction is what makes people, such as myself, opposed to gays in Scouts, not the gender.
And yet, when it comes to boys, you want to pretend as if it somehow doesn't make any difference....but apparently ONLY when it comes to boys. I say it makes ALL the difference in the world, and I'll prove that to you a couple of points down.
We're dealing with our society. What other societies do is of no concern to me regarding this discussion.
True, but the reality is that the USA is not a big nudist colony. I could be wrong here, but to my knowledge, there are also no children allowed in nudist colonies by law, as that is considered an adult domain and environment. The fact that you might have a small fraction of 1% of the adult population of the USA living in a nudist environment has absolutely no relevance to an organization where, other than adult leaders, the membership is comprised of minor children.
The vast majority of males are heterosexual and I don't know who is or isn't gay. That is what makes the situation totally different from what homosexual advocates are proposing for the Scouts with openly gay Scouts.
(Here's where I prove to you that sexual attraction is the key)
If I did know ahead of time that they were gay, then I would remove myself, or my son from their presence, just as I suspect you would remove your 15 year old daughter if there were 17 year old boys in the shower. You would remove her wouldn't you? And why would you remove her?
I'll tell you why: For the same reason I would remove my son. That reason is because you KNOW that the boys are attracted to your daughter. Yet you somehow totally dismiss that reality and act as if it doesn't even exist when it comes to gay boys.
Why?
It is that disconnect of logic and reality on your part that blows your argument completely out of the water. You can not rationally justify removing your daughter from the presence of boys because of the reason that you know they are attracted to her, and then at the same time tell me I'm "intolerant", because I want to remove my son from homosexual boys for exactly the same reason.
You are telling me I must submit my son to the homosexual elements who are attracted to him, (I suspect, because of guilt you seemed to have chosen to take on because many parts of society (and not just the Scouts) do not accept them), and yet, you will not submit your daughter to the heterosexuals who are attracted to her. And that proves why gender is not the focus: The nature of the sexual attraction is the focus.
But just to carry it one step further, I bet if you knew for absolute certainty that those 17 year old boys in the shower were gay, you would STILL remove your daughter wouldn't you? Yes, I think you would. And yet, if you had your way, you would force my son into that same situation.
That facade of tolerance you put forward seems pretty shaky there JOregon. You can't tell me that you are in the right to protect your daughter, and then somehow tell me I'm "intolerant" and in the wrong for wanting to protect my son for exactly the same reason.
The safest person is a heterosexual male who is a strong male role model to the boys he is charged with leading. Adult women can be fully involved with Scouting as leaders, but, just as required of males, they must be heterosexual. The BSA makes no distinction between men and women in that regard, they are both held to the same standard. If they do not meet that standard, then they can not be leaders. Ms. Tyrrell did not meet the standard. The BSA was being consistent to their standards.
The BSA is not a societal sexual experiment for the homosexual lobby to use as a mechanism to further their agenda and feelings of acceptance in society.
The BSA has put forth their standards and you either accept them or you don't. If you don't, then don't join. You may call them any names you wish. They have made it clear, and shown just recently, that such attacks made by others will have no bearing on their policy.
I find it a bit ironic that you claim I am intolerant about gays, and yet can't see that you are just as intolerant of the beliefs of Scouts. It works both ways. I am repulsed by the sexual behavior of gays. In casual settings, I have absolutely no problem with gays at all. I can have great conversations with them at parties, eat dinner with them, play music with them (all of which I have done) and be completely at ease with them in any casual setting.
The difference is that the Scouts is not just a casual setting. It involves intimate settings of showering and sleeping together. And that's why there is a difference. I can have a great conversation with any gay person: That doesn't mean I want to get naked in front of them, take a shower with them, or sleep in the same bed with them.
But to directly answer your question about if my son was gay.... First of all, I have never said one thing to him that was derogatory about homosexuals. He was taught at an early age about sex between men and women. He's known all of that for a long time. I have never shown my son any hate toward homosexuals, because contrary to what you seem to believe, I don't hate homosexuals.
Repulsion of a behavior does not mean I harbor hatred in my heart for them. Recognizing that there are situations where their presence is not welcome (just as you recognize that there are situations with your daughter where boys would not be welcome) is NOT hatred.
And as to the answers to the rest of your query: It's pretty simple really. If he is gay, I will love still love him just as I always have. I will welcome his partner into my home with open arms and make him feel as welcome as possible.
Oh yeah.... and one more thing, I'll also tell them they can't be Scout leaders, and they can not come on the camp out this weekend, because private organizations have the right to set the standards as to whom they will accept as members. So I'll say to them, "sorry to tell you guys, but you didn't made the cut: Hey, life is tough sometimes."
If my son is gay, that's just something he will have to live with.
And so will you.
Any thing other then THEIR view is hatred, regardless of how logical an argument you make. CNR i think you make great points, and all of your examples would show their bigotry.
Marmaduke49: I'm just flattered to know that someone has thought enough of my argument to have been following at all. Given the leftward bent of this blog, it can get pretty lonely out here for conservatives on some threads, so I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised.
Thank you sincerely.
Liberals Bigots, can that be?
CNR
It was not intended as a personal attack or insult.
I literally overestimated you.
How can you have a discussion with someone and not pay attention to what the person says? What I am getting from this is you are stuck on your viewpoint and only look for things you can address. You are not open to truth, you are not open to understanding, you are fixated on presenting your talking points only. I thought you were much more aware.
In fact your current post is a good example. Let me guess, instead of reading what I said then responding you responded as you read. You really didn't try to understand what I said, you just wanted your talking points.
My understanding is, children are allowed in Nudist Colonies. They advertise themselves as family oriented. There are other adult only type places that focus on sex, but nudist colonies are the opposite. Granted I have never been to one, but when I was in my late teens and early 20's my friends (male and female) and I often skinny dipped and sex was not part of the equation.
I will try one more time to help you understand why that is an important difference.
That sexual attraction you are so worried about is based on what the culture establishes.
In our (your) typical culture naked boys get excited when they see naked girls. Nothing wrong with that it is normal for our culture. Because we live in that culture we do need to segregate boys from girls in the shower.
Also in our culture gays shower with straights. It happens ALL the time. It happens in pools, schools, and in your scout camps. If you or your son has showered with others you have almost certainly showered with someone that is gay. Because it is common in our culture and we have grown up with it there are no problems. Sex is NOT part of the equation.
You are worried about my daughter showering with boys, yes I would have a problem with a teen girl showering with boys – unless it was in a culture that was accepting of it; such as a nudist colony, or even in most of Europe. Let's face it, America has a lot of sexual hang ups that the rest of the world doesn't.
Of course the other extreme - in some parts of the world just sending your daughter out with her face or legs uncovered would be inciting rape.
A better example would be if it would bother me if my son was to shower with gays, it would not. Since I have 2 boys and 2 girls I think I can answer that question honestly.
The KKK and NAMBLA are organizations that seek to impose harmful actions on others. The KKK is a hate organization, much like the scouts are becoming. NAMBLA wants to override paternal rights and end the age of consent – HUGE difference. Allowing gays into the Scouts is to allow normal people in who were born with a rare orientation, no agenda and not based on a choice someone makes.
Do you understand the KKK and NAMBLA choose their positions. Gays do not choose theirs?
That doesn't make it right.
There were similarities in the law concerning racial discrimination.
The Utah branches of Scouts DID discriminate because of skin color.
Because the Scouting membership was to follow the rules established by the school systems Blacks were not allowed into the Scouts in the South – umm Schools allow gays in.
Federally Chartered?
Besides the Scouts are supposed to be an INCLUSIONARY organization. Now they have decided to exclude people that were BORN in a certain way.
It is one thing to not include people for their choices, such as not believing in God, it is another to exclude people for how they were born, be that skin color, color blindness, handedness, or sexual orientation. To exclude for what someone cannot control is morally corrupt.
You just described Jerry Sandusky.
What you didn't address is my question. Since it is based on previous posts that you didn't pay attention to I'll try to clarify it for you.
Since straight women have been in the news because of their sexual relationships with underage boys...
Since heterosexual sexual role models, such as Jerry Sandusky have been prosecuted for assaulting underage boys...
Since you are concerned about openly gay men seducing underage boys (can you give a reference or two for your concern?)...
It seems the only SAFE person to lead a troop is a Lesbian – Don't you agree?
Since you have said your concern is the sexual assault of boys shouldn't Lesbians be admitted to scouting?
I am asking for YOUR opinion not the official scouting position.
We have plenty of evidence showing straight men and women commit crimes against children, what evidence do you have showing openly gay men or women doing the same?
As a Christian I despise those that work against the body of Christ while claiming Christ.
I am appalled by the hypocrisy of such organizations.
They give Christianity a bad name. Yes I realize they don't represent any one religion, yet in America Christianity is their primary push. It is the basis for the gay ban. It was also the original basis for the organization as covered in an earlier post.
If you are going to claim the moral high ground you had better live the moral high ground. Scouts allow those in adulterous marriages to lead. Hypocrites.
If you don't think your son doesn't know that, you are hopelessly lost. Children generally know what their parents believe in, if not now, soon.
http://dictionary.reference.com/
re·pul·sion
noun
2. the feeling of being repelled, as by the thought or presence of something; distaste, repugnance, or aversion.
hate
noun
4. intense dislike; extreme aversion or hostility.
Denial is not a river in Egypt.
You were actually saying that to yourself weren't you? I could care less if someone is Gay, you are the one with issues.
I repeat a previous point:
Drug usage is a big problem with the gay community, and no wonder. Parents that hate them. Former best friends become enemies. Teasing, bullying, and rejection. Drugs to escape, how can you blame them?
The churches and the scouts are part of the problem, when they should be part of the solution.
That is the crux of my position, do good instead of doing bad.
Marm...49
Who or what is "THEIR"?
Definition please.
I am Pro-life am I liberal?
I am divorced and as such I follow the bible's commandment "not to seek another". Am I liberal?
1 Corinthians 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
1 Corinthians 7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
I follow the Lords command to love thy neighbor instead of hating, am I liberal?
Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
You don't know me.
JOregon:
So, let me get this straight, I'm "stuck" on my viewpoint, but somehow you're not? That's quite an amusing spin you've got there.
Actually, I have no problem saying that I am stuck on my viewpoint. I have thought it through logically and reached the conclusions I have based on that logic of sexual attraction. Being open-minded is great while you are searching for what you believe to be true, but it is not open ended.
Eventually you either have to come to a solid conclusion based on what you believe to be true, or you have to admit that you haven't reached any conclusions because you still don't know what you believe. One can not claim to be open minded, while at the same time, putting forth a concrete set of beliefs.
It seems that you have reached your conclusions, just as I have, therefore, you can not claim to still be open-minded on this issue.
The difference between us is that I reached my conclusions based on the reality of the nature of the sexual attraction of homosexuals to other males.
Your conclusion can only be reached by denial of the reality of that attraction, to pretend that it doesn't exist, or to just hope that nothing happens because of it. The desire for you to show acceptance overrides your ability to accept the reality of the attraction.
You can not make a logical argument as to why you have the right to protect your daughter in the face of sexual attraction from boys, and then tell me I am intolerant because I will not accept that same attraction toward my sons from other males. The only way you can possibly do that is by denying the reality of the sexual attraction.
You can not protest the BSA for not being inclusive of homosexuals based on their sexual nature, and then deny that the sexual attraction exists. To accept that argument is to say that everyone, no matter their gender, or sexual attraction shouldn't ever have any hang ups about being in any kind of intimate setting with anyone at anytime. Sorry, that logic just does not work unless you completely deny the reality of human nature.
Again, the fact that you have admitted that you would protect your daughter from being in intimate situations with those you know are attracted to her blows your own argument right out of the water. You can not claim that right, while denying me that same right for my son, based on EXACTLY the same logic.
I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that it is possible to understand exactly what you said, and not agree with it. Apparently understanding only occurs if I agree with you.
Hhhhmmmm, seems I'm not the one denying the nature of homosexual attraction to other males in order to validate a desire for acceptance now does it? I believe that's your position. And yet, in your mind, I'm the one not open to to the truth. Again, quite an interesting spin you've got there.
As I said in the previous post, I could be wrong on that. I have little knowledge of the rules and laws concerning nudist colonies.
So then why would it bother you for your daughter to shower with boys? Using your argument, if your daughter was a lesbian, then you would have no problem with her showering with boys. But I don't think that's the case, because you know the boys can still be attracted to her regardless of whether or not she is a lesbian.
You are not applying the reality of sexual attraction equally. You are denying that reality in certain instances to make your case for acceptance, while enforcing that same reality in other instances because it makes you uncomfortable. But in order to support your argument, you really have no other choice.
Again, the difference between our positions is that I am applying it consistently to all situations. I can do that because the notion of non acceptance does not bother me as it obviously does you. As you have already admitted by the desire to protect your daughter; the truth is that it DOES bother you, but only in certain situations where your standard of non acceptance is validated for you.
Fortunately, I have the right to define my own standards of what I deem to be acceptable or not acceptable in this situation. Thankfully, I don't have to accept yours, nor do you have to personally accept mine, except to the extent that mine is supported by law and precedent, while yours is not.
In your eyes it doesn't make it right. In my eyes, and in the eyes of the Constitution and the law it is absolutely right. Without that foundation, then you have no right of free association.
If you go and do a little research on Federal Charters, you will find that for all intents and purposes, Congress, with very few exceptions, stopped the practice of Federal Charters some time ago. They have issued a few in the last couple of decades, but only very few. Beyond that, the Federal Charter bestows no rights or privileges on any organization that has a Federal Charter. It basically is an honorarium that says a particular group is recognized the the Federal Government as existing. That's all it does.
If the BSA wants to give up their Federal Charter, I have no problem with that at all. It will make no difference to the organization in terms of funding, or their rights to meet in public facilities if they wish to do so. The Federal Charter is a sybolic overture at best.
The Scouts are inclusionary ONLY of those that willingly accept their beliefs and agree to the principles of Scouting. They have never claimed to be group that includes everyone, regardless of their beliefs or actions. I'm not sure where you got that one from.
Wrong, by definition, if Sandusky is having sex with minor boys, he is a pedophile, and therefore, he is NOT a heterosexual male. Again, the only way you can reach your conclusion that Sandusky is a heterosexual is to deny the reality of his desire for sex with other males. (that seems to be a real sticking point in your argument) Just because a person claims to be heterosexual does not make it true if the reality is that he is having sex with other males. I can claim to be the President of the United States too, but that doesn't make it true.
No, I don't agree, because I do not operate under the belief that all males really want to have sex with other males, as you seem to imply. That may be your belief, but it's not mine. Beyond that, the safety factor is not exclusive unto itself, it must be taken in the context of the goals and aims of the Scouting program as a whole, not an issue dominant by itself, but with the understanding that the role models for the Scouts are to be men. Not women.
Your example is like saying we want to reduce all car accidents to zero, so we'll just eliminate the cars and substitute bicycles instead. Yeah, that gets rid of the car accidents, but also eliminates every goal that was attainable with a car, but can never be attained with a bicycle just due to the nature of the bicycle itself.
Safety of Scouts in the last couple of decades or so, has, because of previously lax policy on the part of the BSA, necessarily become a focus of being more selective in choosing Scouting leadership. But the safety factor in and of itself does not subjugate the fact that the Scouts are a male orgainzation with a desire to have strong male leaders. They have implemented policies that are designed to protect their Scouts to the best of their ability, while still ensuring a male role model in the vast majority of leadership positions.
As I said, women can be Scout leaders. (Not to get off topic here, but I wonder, can men be Girl Scout leaders? I don't think so, but I'm not trying to get off on a tangent here about the "intolerance" of the Girl Scouts. Given your argument, I'm sure you have no problem with men being Girl Scout leaders. We want to be accepting here right?)
Anyway, the Scouts, outside of perhaps a few women in leadership roles, are a male dominated organization. One of the purposes of Scouting is to provide strong male leadership with strong male role models as leaders. Women, as much as they are welcome in Scouting, by the nature of their gender, can never provide that type of example. If they could, then we wouldn't have nearly as many problems as we do in households where the only one present is the mother and there is no male role model.
The reason for the implementation of the BSA Youth Protection program was specifically because that had happened before. I can also tell you that as a teen, I was approached on more than one occasion by gay males. As you can guess, I rejected their advances. And that's one reason that gays are not allowed in Scouting. As I've said, Scouting is not a social sexual experiment. Scouting is not the place for sexual advances. Allowing openly homosexual boys into Scouting opens that door, regardless of your denial of the sexual attraction aspect of the homosexual.
In other words, you are intolerant that others may just as sincerely believe that they too are doing the work of Christ, but only if they believe as you do. Is that the way it works?
Contrary to what you seem to put forth, Christ is accepting of everyone, but He is NOT accepting of their behaviors. The money changers in the temple is probably the best known example. Christ was NOT tolerant of Mary Magdalines (sp?) prostitution. He did not condemn her for it, but He did tell her to stop it. Why? Because He was intolerant of her behavior. Christ was accepting of the woman at the well, but He was NOT tolerant of her living with another man who was not her husband.
You are arguing that acceptance of a person must also mean acceptance of their behaviors. Christ would tell you you are wrong about that. And I just gave you three examples where Christ himself demonstrated that.
Christ was accepting of everyone, but he was NOT accepting of their behaviors. He told people to change. You want to accept people, but ask no change of them. That's NOT what Christ taught.
If a Scoutmaster is having an openly adulterous affair while he is married, he should be removed from his position of leadership. I can not cite an example of where that has happened, but I'm sure it probably has. And so, if it has, and the local leadership did nothing to remove the leader, then they did not live up the the beliefs of the Scouts. I expect there to be equal enforcement of the Scout policy at all levels. Having an affair? You're out. Period.
The Scouts do NOT advocate any denomination or require a belief in Christ, nor do they base their tenants on any particular denomination. That's why there are Scouts of all religions. Believe in God is the only requirement.
I have no need to convince you of my lack of hatred for gays. You have made up your mind on that, and nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. Unless of course, I adopt your position and denial of reality regarding homosexuals in Scouting.
That statement was in regard to the preceding paragraph where I would have told him that, if you are gay, you can not be a Scout leader, or come on the camp out. That is what I meant by saying he and his partner would have to live with that. Not the fact that he was gay. I probably shouldn't have put a paragraph break there, but instead, included it as the final sentence of the previous paragraph, so as to avoid confusion of what was it was he was going to have to live with. My mistake.
I can honestly and truthfully say that I have NEVER uttered one word of a derogatory nature to any homosexual: Not even the ones who made sexual advances toward me. As far as their own personal problems, only they can come to terms with who they are. I can't do that for them, nor can I be there to insert myself should I see any examples of the type you listed taking place. For the most part, you are talking affairs of the heart.
As I've said all along, you can not ask that homosexuals be allowed to join the Scouts regardless of their sexuality, and then ask the Scouts to just pretend that sexuality does not exist. That principle is practiced in various shapes and forms in any group that is inclusive of only certain people.
The problem is that to meet your definition of a solution, you are asking me, and people like me to just ignore what is a born reaction to homosexuality. That is no more realistic than asking homosexuals to become heterosexual. If nothing else, I guess we both agree that homosexuals are born like that. The funny thing is that when I tell you I was born like that as well, you expect me to just ignore it.
I can agree with that as well, but in the context of the Scouting program, as I said before, the aims and goals of the Scouting program are not sexual in nature and the BSA does not want the focus of their program to become such.
The BSA does plenty of good in the community by many worthwhile projects, but sexual psychology for the purpose of making homosexuals feel accepted has never been a focus of the Scouts. Nor should it be.
There are other avenues and programs that homosexuals can avail themselves of conducted by professionals for that purpose. The Scouts have made it clear that they do not wish to make sexual orientation a focus of the Scouts. That is not their stated mission, and it both distracts from and corrupts their stated policies.
If homosexuals wish to stay in the closet, they can join the Scouts and no one will ever know. I'm sure that's the case today with thousands. But the fact that they are in the closet while in Scouting is of their own choosing, the Scouts do not force them to stay in the closet. Furthermore, I can be pretty certain that staying in the closet also prevents many of those gay scouts from making advances on others.
After all, if a gay boy can be openly homosexual, then gosh, it's not that big a deal if he make advances on other boys in the troop, even if those other boys are straight. After all, the homosexual boy was born that way and making those advances, if not expected, would certainly be understood to be a natural action being born that way you see. And, of course, to kick him out of the troop for making those advances would be way too harsh a punishment in your book I'm sure, beucause he would no longer feel accepted. This and a million other similar situations are just one of many reasons the BSA does not want openly homosexual boys in Scouting.
But as I pointed out earlier, if all the boys are heterosexual (or at least pretend to be), then you don't have to worry about advances because the gays who are in the closet in Scouting know it will lead to their dismissal if they make their identity known. They do this of their own free will. If there are openly homosexual boys in the Scouts, then you introduce a concept that was never intended or desired to be a element of Scouting.
The BSA rejects the admission of openly homosexual boys. They are right to do so and they also have the right to do so.
CNR
You are stuck because you don't hear, comprehend, listen, or whatever to what I say.
I try to read and understand everything you say. Huge difference.
I could care less if you thought I was a female, some of the greatest minds on this planet are women. The fact you never realized that I was a man, even though I had posted many times I was a man, shows your inability, or desire, to pay attention. That is disturbing. It makes me feel that my time is being wasted. I've been working anywhere from 50 to 70 hours a week. I have had days last as long as 19 hours and when I spend as much time as I do posting something it would be nice to know the person I am supposedly having a conversation with is listening to what I say.
Once again in your most recent post you turn the deaf ear. Amazing.
You logic is seriously flawed. You have confused Homosexuality with Ephebophilia and Hebephilia.
Pedophiles are not sexually attracted to someone of the same sex they are sexually attracted to children – TOTALLY DIFFERENT.
http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/sexualassault/pedophilia_and_molestation.htm
I wish I didn't have to ask you this - - DID YOU HEAR WHAT WAS SAID???????
What you are saying is wrong on so many levels.
1st – Jerry Sandusky would have passed your sniff test.
2nd – The Scouts would have welcomed him with open arms as a great example of moral character.
3rd – He is not a Homosexual.
4th – There have been over 2,000 cases of child abuse in the scouts. Obviously your anti gay stance doesn't work.
The Scouts did instigate a program called the “Youth Protection Program”. Child molestation did decline since the program went into effect. Nothing in the program identifies Gays as being a risk factor.
http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/HealthandSafety/GSS/gss01.aspx
I really don't see a reason for wasting my time with you so I will only cover one more point.
1) Obviously Heterosexuals such as Jerry Sandusky (95% of all known pedophiles are Heterosexual) abuse children.
2) Heterosexual women often abuse children.
3) Even though it is very rare you are worried about openly gay males abusing children.
4) Can you give me ANY good reason why a Lesbian shouldn't be a scout leader? No BS about the Scouts being a private organization. I ask this because of your paranoia of child abuse. What do you have to fear from a Lesbian?
Grow a pair and answer HONESTLY.
I cut this short with the hope you will actually read it and try to understand what I have said. There is more I would have liked to have dealt with but I just don't think you are capable of taking in that much.
JOregon:
Apparently your definition of hear, comprehend, and listen means that I must also agree with you. I could just as easily claim that you don't seem to comprehend that point, or the fact that I absolutely do not agree with you.
I believe you read, and that you do understand. Unfortunately, that does nothing to address the denial you apply in one circumstance when it comes to homosexual boys, but embrace a separation between sexes when it comes to girls. You have a double standard. You do not address sexual attraction equally. You view it one way for homosexuals and another for heterosexual. I'm telling you the attraction is EXACTLY the same. You insist homosexuals are born with that attraction, and then will deny it exists in order to allow for homosexual and heterosexual mixing of boys in intimate settings.
I know why you do it. It is because if any heterosexual boy was uncomfortable in that situation, (and many would be) then you will tell them that it's too bad and they'll just have to live with it. You do this in order to support your belief that if only we could get them together, (even by force), then you're just absolutely sure that the heterosexual boys would just suddenly see it your way and become comfortable in front of homosexual boys who are attracted to them. I'm telling you that's BS, because you are trying to force by societal decree what was BORN into most males. If it wasn't, then most males would be at least be bi-sexual. They are not. Are you hearing what I'm telling you?
When the tables are turned, and all of a sudden it's girls who are in front of boys that are attracted to them; then in that case, you suddenly "see the light" and understand perfectly well why that shouldn't be allowed to happen. I'm telling you that for those who feel an attraction, for either the same sex, or the opposite sex, the attraction is exactly the same in both cases. The only difference in the case of homosexual boys is that only one side; the homosexual, feels the attraction.
In your politically correct mind, the heterosexual boys don't need any acceptance, and so there's no big deal in denying them the access to the objects of their attraction; girls. But in the case of homoseuxal boys, you feel guilty that much of society does not accept their attraction, and so to placate that guilt, you have no problem forcing heterosexual boys to be in the company of openly homosexual boys in intimate settings. Again, in your mind, you are telling yourself that if only the heterosexuals were forced to do so, they would change their mind. I'm telling you it is born in those of us who feel like that, and we will never feel comfortable in order for you to reduce your self imposed sense of guilt.
And you're being very "Clintonesque" with splitting hairs about age differences. I mean really, you're making a point so obtuse as to be using age differences that are irrelevant in this case since we're talking about boys from 11 to 18. You are somehow trying to claim that the sexual attraction of a homosexual boy will suddenly cease to exist if only he is allowed to be open about that same sexual attraction in the Scouts. After all, that is the defining factor of homosexuality: Attraction to other males. Age is irrelevant, both in the boys and the adult leaders since the Scouts do not condone the behavior regardless of the age.
I made a mistake concerning your gender. I apologized for it. You can either accept it or not. But, when I have pasted and addressed all of your main points, and gone into excruciating detail so as to lay out my logic point by point, then you can not possibly or logically claim that I am not hearing what you say. I don't agree with much of what you say. That is the point you don't seem to get.
Because of your obsession with acceptance, due to your guilt, it doesn't register when I will not buy your false logic of denial concerning homosexuals. It's only when you take off the blinders of guilt and can admit that you are trying to force them together in intimate situations in hopes that the heterosexual will become more tolerant; that maybe you will start being honest about your denial and what your real motives (as I just detailed) really are.
Yes, I heard what was said. And what I'm telling you is that, in the case of Scouts, it is irrelevant because the Scouts do not want homosexuals OR pedophiles (regardless of what age segment they are attracted to) in their organization. Are you hearing that? The nuances of the particular behavior are inconsequential since they all involve violation of someone else unless it is two consensual homosexuals. And the Scouts don't want that on camping trips either. Are you hearing that?
As I said in my previous post, which you apparently didn't hear: Safety of the Scouts is of utmost importance, but NOT....got that?... NOT to the exclusion of the rest of their ideals. Safety MUST be taken in the context of having MALE ROLE MODELS, not female. Females can NOT take the place of the male role model in the context of Scouting. Are you hearing that?
You will never be able to guarantee anything 100%. Again, the Scouts do not allow homosexuals, lesbians, pedophile, transgender, cross dressers, voyeuers, or, for that matter, just normal girls, to be either members or leaders. Safety is to be taken in conjunction with the rest of the tenants of Scouting; not as a single factor to the exclusion of all others.
As I said, if you want to eliminate auto accidents, the ONLY way you will ever be able to do that is by elimiation of the auto itself. If the rest of your goals include mandates that can only be met by use of an auto, then you are not being realistic.
Ask the boys he raped if they feel the same way. If he is attracted to males, regardless of age or reason....control, alcohol...whatever, I'm telling you that he is bi-sexual at best, a pedophile for sure, and most likley a closet homosexual. You can be a pedophile and a homosexual at the same time. But you can NOT be called ONLY heterosexual while having sex with males. If you are having sex with males, REGARDLESS OF THE REASON, the best you can claim is to be bi-sexual. It doesn't matter if you go 20 years between incidents; if you have the attraction, then time frame does not matter, reason for the act does not matter, and the technical defintion becomes a moot point. You are either bi-sexual, homosexual, or a pedophile. You are NOT heterosexual, regardless of what you claim to the world.
You are trying to make things far too theoretical, and applying what are really inconsequential technical details for a real world situation. Put down your theories and technical definitions and get into the real world: The real world where both homosexuality and pedophilia are rejected by the Scouts. It doesn't matter which one is more applicable in a given situation, neither are accepted by the Scouts as being morally acceptable to them.
I've done nothing but answer honestly. The Scouts do not wish to have, or accept homosexuals or the female equivalent into either the youth ranks or leadership positions because they view the orientation as being morally corrupt, regardless of what it may mean in terms of safety. Again, it has to be taken in context with the rest of the tenants of Scouting. And those tenants reject homosexuality, pedophilia and lesbianism based on their belief that they are morally corrupt orientations. It doesn't matter whether you agree or not. The Scouts believe that it is, and you do not get to make their policies for them.
Are you hearing that? Especially the part about "it doesn't matter whether you think it is or not", in regards to your authority to set policy for the Scouts. You can have your opinion, but you can not force them to do as you would.
One final question, for now. If you were approached by a homosexual for sex, would you reject him? And if so, then I guess you don't care if you make him feel unaccepted, or hurt his feelings do you? Given your position, it seems that you really have no choice but to accept his advances, lest you might make him feel unaccepted and rejected. You wouldn't want that would you?
CnR Some Days it Just Doesnt Pay!
roc1960: LOL, yeeeeeah, I know, I know. For those that wish to maintain double standards, no amount of logic and consistency will change their mind. The desire for the homosexual to be viewed by society at large as being as normal as any other male eviscerates any compulsion to apply any consistency of standard.
As I've said before, liberals set up a new set of rules for every situation. The must do this in order to support their argument. The rules for one situation can not be applied to another, because in many cases, the rules from one situation will totally contradict the rules from another situation.
The discussion here is a perfect example: JOregon would not let his daughter shower with boys for whom the object of their attraction is the female. For that matter, I don't think he would let his daughter shower with gay males either, but he would let his daughter shower with a lesbian. He wouldn't have any problem with that.
Switch it to males, however, and then the rules must be changed. Heterosexual males can not be allowed to shower with women. He can see that point. (which is also the way the vast majority of America would agree with.) However, when taken in the context of his argument, it is an inconsistent position on his part, because while heterosexuals must be denied the opportunity to shower with the objects of their attraction, heterosexual males must accept being in intimate situations with open homosexuals or else you are then labeled as bigoted, homophobic, etc.
The homosexual male must be accorded acceptance, and so the consistency of position turns into the denial of reality to placate the desire of the homosexual to feel accepted.
And while I haven't gotten an answer to my last question to JOregon, I'm pretty sure that he would not engage in a homosexual act. So, as I've said all along, I can always find where the person accusing me of not being tolerant, will themselves, become just as intolerant.
It's just that in the liberal mind, their line must be honored, while my line is unreasonable.
Not at all.
Very simply I said several times I am a Male.
You thought I was a Female. Therefore you didn't hear, comprehend or listen to what I said. That's just the facts. You don't have to agree on anything here. Just acknowledging you weren't paying attention is sufficient.
Instead you apologize for calling me a woman as if that really mattered.
On #1303.18 - Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:23 PM PDT I said:
You totally didn't hear what I said or what the bible said and decided the word "Adultery" had an entirely different meaning.
On, #1303.20 - Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:27 PM PDT, you said:
You were totally oblivious to what the bible said.
I listened to you then tried to explain it for you - again.
#1303.21 - Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:15 PM PDT:
Instead of acknowledging what I said or what the bible said you decided to change directions.
#1303.22 - Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:21 AM PDT
I listened to what you said, acknowledged it, then explained why you were wrong.
#1303.23 - Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:35 PM PDT:
I have usually acknowledged what you have said then pointed out why you are in error.
You simply ignore and drop the subject or stand by your own PERSONAL definitions.
#1303.29 - Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:06 AM PDT
I have tried to explain several times that being a pedophile doesn't mean you are a Homosexual.
Even the experts say that 95% of the known Pedophiles are Heterosexual.
There are various reasons for being a Pedophile, one thing is certain an openly Gay person is almost NEVER going to be your Pedophile. Banning openly Gay people because you fear child abuse has ZERO factual support.
I have tried to explain that a Pedophile is attracted to Children.
Someone that is Gay is attracted to someone of the same sex.
I am going to try one more way of explaining this to you, though I suspect this will go as far over your head as the "Mars NASA Curiosity rover".
A man that is a HETEROSEXUAL is attracted to FEMININE characteristics.
A man that is a HOMOSEXUAL is attracted to MASCULINE characteristics.
A PEDOPHILE is attracted to CHILDREN.
A Child is more Feminine than Masculine. As we become more masculine men get facial hair, muscles, a deeper voice, a variety of triggers that someone might find attractive.
Little boys are soft, their voices haven't changed, they don't shave, they are more feminine - THAT IS A MAJOR REASON WHY MOST PEDOPHILES ARE HETEROSEXUAL.
Some Pedophiles get off on the power trip.
Some are just opportunists.
As a male I interacted more with boys when I was growing up, some men are never able to feel comfortable with females so they target what they are familiar with.
Some are taught to respect girls, it is ground into them. Boys not so much.
If someone was teased a lot as a child I can see that person wanting to get revenge on the boys that teased them so they may target a child with a certain look.
There may be a whole heard of reasons why someone is a Pedophile but being openly gay isn't one of them.
I have been approached by gays.
My date invited me to her brothers party. He was gay. I was the only straight guy there. Somebody approached me, I told him I was straight and my date was in the bathroom. We had a chuckle about it and talked for awhile.
There have been other times but I never felt anyone's feelings were hurt because I refused their advances. I certainly don't think they felt unaccepted.
Not sure why you would try to make such a connection.
Grasping for Straws?
I answered you very precisely - but as usual you never heard the answer.
A Pedophile is by nature neither homo/heterosexual. First off a homo/heterosexual is attracted to fully developed post pubescent males or females. A homosexual is not sexually attracted to young undeveloped boys or girls in the same as a heterosexual is not attracted to underdeveloped boys or girls. It is the developments of puberty into adult bodies that bring with it a sexually attraction. Problem being with that definition is that the onset of puberty can start as early as 9 or 10 in girls a little latter with boys but both sexes can have adult looking, and adult functioning bodies long before the age of 18 a legal adult. Legal definition of a pedophile is one who has sex/sexual attraction with a minor, under age of 18. A girl now days as young as 13, 14 can be developed with all the attributes of an adult female (physical) and can be attractive by nature by an adult heterosexual. But by being attracted to and or having sex with such 13 year old by another definition can be called a pedophile rightfully so. Same holds true for homosexual with boys under 18, a boy at 14, 15 can carry the attributes (physically) of an adult male but by having sex with said minor is again pedophilia. Now a male who is married with children can also be a pedophile wear-as the true sexual attraction is in young boys or girls and not in their adult female spouse. But by being married they fit into the "norm" of society, a cover for their actual sexual preference. At one time in the past many homosexual men were married to a women whom they had little or no sexual desire for but it was again the "norm" for a Man and Women to be married. But the true sexual attraction was in adult men. For these reasons it is hard to distinguish a pedophile unless of course they are caught in the act with a child. Please I wish to point out that I Myself do not condone nor tolerate sex with a minor by anyone! So then could a gay scout leader have a sexual attraction to a 14 year old boy scout? Same as a straight male could have an attraction to a 14 year old girl. Bottom line is do they act upon it.
Thats the Stigma of todays society and pedophilia. Everyone thinks that is an older guys is attracted to a fully developed Girl who is a teenager, they think that is pedophilia when in reality by definition it is not. Also in reality what Guy wouldnt be attracted to a nice young , smooth skin, wrinkle free, tight muscles, slender body Girl ? Thats just reality and I guarantee most men think it, but wont admit it in public because of the stigma of Pedophilia. The norm of the olden days was once a girl hit puberty she was of age to have kids and a family.
Of course you can set that double standard, which is it that people have the issue with ? Their young daughter having sex in general , or if it was by an older guy. What if a 15 year old boy has sex with a 13 year old girl, both went through puberty already. Now what if it was a 24 year old man with a 16 year old girl ? Now people thinks that is sick.. Now take those 2 people and add just 5 years to their life, She is now 21, and he is 29 .. Doesnt seem sick anymore does it ? Its funny how peoples minds work when your dealing with numbers.
true Pedophilia is the attraction to pre pubescent kids, normally 5 to 10 age range.
You are correct there was a time when a young lady lets say under 14 was already married and was having children. Also people at that time Usually didn't live much past their 50's (more so in rule life) so in an essence there was a "need" to start your family early. There was a "reverence" in regards to sex then, and was not as open and "free" as it is now. But at that time there was no legal definition of an adult as there is now and everything that goes with it. True pedophilia has been characterised with the sexual desire for prepubescent children. But its the legal terminology that varies, plus as it does from state to state. Is a 15 year old boy and a 13 year old girl capable of having sex physically yes, mentally ready with the repercussions that can come with an active sex life, I don't think so. Is it correct for a lets say male that is 21 and more mentally aware to be able to prey on a 13 year old girl who is naive and not mentally prepared but physically capable of sex? No that's why laws are in place.
But every person is different as in the stages of mentality. Some people mature mentally and physically before others. This is what makes the lawsuits such grey areas because the actual crime needs to be defined. Lets break it down step by step.
What is the crime ? A person wanting to be with someone who is under 18 ?
Why is that a crime ? If the crime is nothing more then a number, then what magically happens from a kid who is 17 years old, 364 days, their birth day is in 5 minutes. He\she has sex with a guy who is 25. Pedophilia, but had the occurrence happen 6 minutes later after the stroke of midnight, shes now 18, and fully capable mentally and physically in a sexual situation.
I understand we as a society have made laws that say a person is an adult at 18. But what makes that number so magical to determine cases of pedophilia ? Its not even pedophilia if a 60 year old guy desires a 17 year old. As i said before, what guy doesnt desire a young lady. Im sure there are people who would say they arent, but a lot of guys would. That doesnt make them bad.
So back to the age thing, what are we doing in society to determine an age universally that makes people no longer in the category stigma of pedophilia.
It is something that would have to be judged , case by case, person by person. I think the variables are too loose to make any conclusions.
There are a lot of mature 13 year old girls when compared to the immature 21 year old guys.
With things they are now days when my daughter was 13 I would not let her date a 21 year old man. Would You?
I wouldnt either. Im not advocating any of it, but my point is there are issues with society and the mentality of dating ages.
I do agree to an extent, a 30 year man dating a 20 year old women is stigmatized to an extent but no one gives a second thought to a 40 year old man dating a 30 year old women.
JOregon:
Yes you did. I admitted my mistake, but yet you act as if that one mistake on my part validates every other part of your illogical argument. It does not, nor does it invalidate every other logical point of my argument. It does not invalidate the fact that homosexuals are attracted to males. Nor does it invalidate the fact that, not only do you apply a double standard, you also apply standards to the BSA to which they do not subscribe.
The BSA does not require belief in the Bible or Jesus. The BSA only requires a belief in God or a higher power. The BSA may use the Bible as a guide for some tenants, and they will use societal norms and accepted traditional cultural values for others. There are Scouts of all religious denominations, and the BSA does not have any policy regarding divorce among it's leadership. The only policy that the BSA would enforce concerning adultery is that a leader would not be allowed to remain in a position of leadership if they were having an open affair while being married. You can quote all the scripture you wish, but that does not make it relevant to the BSA.
The BSA does not "claim" to be open to other religions, they ARE open to other religions. Here in the USA, there are Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Zoro-astrian (sp?), Unitarian, and Hindu Scouts, just to name a few. In fact, the BSA not only recognizes all of those religions, plus others, they also have awards given to Scouts who show they have acquired a knowledge of their chosen religion.
You are applying a standard based on a false belief that the BSA forms it's policy based strictly on the Bible. That is NOT BSA policy. In fact, if you want to use scripture, then you can't just pick and choose those parts that you like. The Bible also says that anyone who has lustful thoughts of another has already committed adultery. Therefore, using that standard, anyone who is or has been married, or has thoughts of someone else who is married would not be qualified to be a leader, but only if the BSA used a strict interpretation of Biblical teaching. It does not. You may not like what the BSA chooses as to which parts they wish to use, but you don't get to make that decision. Go start your own group if that's what you want to do and you can set any standard you wish.
You claim the BSA is a "hate" organization. If you are going to use the Bible as your only source, then I will tell you Jesus was not only a hater Himself, but in order to be a follower of His, he REQUIRED you to be a hater as well. Don't believe me? Read Luke 14:26 and then get back to me. But since you totally ignored a very long section of my last post that addressed the person vs. behavior of the person acceptance of Christ, it pretty much tells me you couldn't address the logic and reality of that argument or find some way to twist it so that it would support allowing gays to be Scouts or leaders.
Wrong. I am stating the policy of the BSA based on their standards. I just happen to agree with them.
And I say you are splitting hairs to support your argument. You don't seem to understand that the BSA does not accept homosexuality or pedophilia. You don't seem to understand that if you are a male having sex with another male, then you are also homosexual by the very definition of homosexual. That doesn't mean that you can not also be a bi-sexual, who also engages in homosexual acts. If you are an adult having sex with a minor, then you are also a pedophile. If you also have sex with women, you are bi-sexual.
You seem to believe that you can ONLY be one thing. I'm telling you that you can have multiple orientations. You don't seem to be able to comprehend that point and want to attempt to pigeon hole everyone into a single category. That's not real life.
And that, as well as all the points you listed above that one does not eliminate the fact that homosexual boys are attracted to other males and that is why the BSA does not want open homosexuals in the Scouts.
Yes, an adult male should be equipped to reject the advances of another adult male. That's not a big deal. The same is not true of a 17 year old who might approach a 12 year old on a camp out. You just wish to live in your world of denial that it would never happen. The BSA is not willing to take that chance so that you will feel better about yourself.
Thankfully, the BSA is not so naive, and they know what the real world situation is. And it is because they understand the risks that they will not open their membership to openly homosexual boys or leaders. Until you quit applying a double standard that treats sexual attraction one way for girls, but another way for boys, then your argument will never have any basis in logic and will forever remain in the realm of emotion and what you think is fair, regardless of the reality of the risk.
BSA, has had a set of Moral Codes and beliefs that they use as their standards. Had them since they were in existence. Can they be tied to and or compared to some religious beliefs? Of course the ones that are the same as some religious beliefs. Do they have a right to uphold their standards, Courts say yes. Bottom line, don't like them or don't fit in with their standards don't join period!
Same as I would not want some 21 year old male or female propositioning my 13 year old daughter, if I had a 13 year old son I would not want some 21 year old male or female propositioning him neither! Bottom line!
roc: I suspect, given JOregon's argument, that if he had his way, he would do away with the freedom of association...well except for those groups for which he would allow it to remain intact, like the Black Congressional Caucus. It's only certain groups that would not be allowed to have that right, but just like with Obamacare, others would be given "waivers" to allow them to be selective about the people they choose to let join their organization. A right which the founding father's recognized as being a fundamental freedom.
Rights, funny how the liberal agenda over looks such things.
Exactly.
CNR thinks that having homosexuals in the BSA creates a danger to children. Thank you for supporting my point.
This is not entirely true. The attraction is toward the masculine or feminine characteristics. As we age those characteristics develop.
At one time I seemed to be focused on 19 year old's.
When I was 18 my girlfriend was 19.
19 - 19.
20 - 19.
24 - 19.
27 - 19.
28 - 19.
At 30 I married a previously divorced 19 year old.
There were other ages in between, but many were 19.
At 60, I'm not interested in 19 anymore.
So what changed? I have daughters that are older than that and girls that remind me of my daughters or their friends don't attract me.
Can I look at a 19 year old and see the attraction? Yes. I am just no longer interested.
I have no attraction to a male, no matter what the age.
I am attracted to the feminine qualities in a woman.
There is a moral compass that keeps me from too young a woman.
A pedophile lacks the moral compass. The attraction to the feminine qualities or masculine qualities is still there.
There are a few rare 12 year old's that shave and have a fully developed body but for the most part boys do not develop until much later in life.
It is not unusual for girls to develop at a much younger age.
We are talking about BOY scouts not GIRL scouts.
Young boys are more feminine than masculine, that is why MOST pedophiles are heterosexual.
That is the HUGE flaw in CNR's argument. He would rather stick his head in the sand thinking all is safe by keeping homosexuals out of the scouts. The opposite is true. A homosexual scout leader is safer than a heterosexual leader, when just dealing with the numbers.
Almost ALL of your pedophiles are Heterosexual, it is that "feminine quality" factor.
One flaw in your argument. The number of Heterosexual adult men in the U.S. vastly out number Homosexual men by a large percentage. Now strictly just by using law of averages that when a man has pedophile tendencies of course there will be more that start out Heterosexual then Homosexual. More so then "feminine quality factor" as you state. A pedophile is neither homo or hetero sexual (interest in adults) but a pedophile. Their sexual arousal is in prepubescent children not adults. You state your Moral Compass as a reason you would not date a 20 year old women though it is perfectly legal. Is it not the same argument the scouts are using? Their moral compass though different then yours in regards to gays but non the less? There are some that would think a 50 or 60 year old dating a 20 year old women is perfectly acceptable, are they wrong because it is against YOUR moral views? Some Men admire Hugh Hefner for his dating prowess.
I dont find anything wrong with a 50 year old dating a 20 year old. There is nothing morally wrong with it. Its society that deems it sickening, but yet can not give a logical reason why it is.
Benefits of it ? Studies show that a man who is with a younger woman tends to live longer. Also a young woman is very capable of having children, being young and fertile, if that is the couples desire. Most guys in that age , are pretty much set in life, have everything put together, and are very stable.
Drawback might be that they both dont get to spend a very long life together.
CNR
I've tried to keep things shorter with the hope you might actually understand what is said. Some things are therefore skipped over. For instance I wanted to comment on this:
There are many women that lead scouts, my mother was not a male.
You still have not addressed the issue - Can you give me ANY good reason why a Lesbian shouldn't be a scout leader? No BS about the Scouts being a private organization. I ask this because of your paranoia of child abuse. What do you have to fear from a Lesbian?
Grow a pair and answer HONESTLY.
You didn't answer honestly you went right to the Scouts belief of “Moral Corruption”....Hold that thought......I address whether the Scouts are open to other religions below.
I want to know what YOU think not what the Scouts, Bible Based, Religious Beliefs are.
It is not just a mistake it is an indication you aren't reading or comprehending or paying attention to what is said.
You completely misunderstood the adulterous marriage issue, and you completely misunderstand the pedophile issue, and you apparently never heard me when I addressed the girl showering with boys issue.
From your (lack of) responses, and ignorance that a (adult male)-(child male) relationship is not a gay relationship, I really don't know what makes you tick.
I seriously doubt you can read even this little snippet of the following column and understand it, but I can only hope it may sink in.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
I don't intend to insult you, I would like to motivate you to pay attention. I feel like I am talking to one of my children when they were young, I didn't insult them. So I ask you, did you hear what was said?
--“Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator's sexual orientation.”--
That is what you are doing, and it is wrong.
Can you understand why it is wrong?
--“The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation.”--
Your points are not logical at all. Because of a thing called FACTS they are fatally flawed.
Of course they are. Where you mess up is you assume a male child is the same thing as a male adult. If you still don't understand that, reread (or read) the quote from above.
Yet the Anti-Gay position is a Bible based position. There are many, who believe in God or a higher power, that are gay, or accepting of gays. Many religions throughout the world have no problem with gays. In many Native American tribes the “two spirit people” were held in high esteem.
As long as the Scouts prohibit Gays from membership they can only CLAIM to be open to other religions. They are overruling the religious beliefs of Billions of people.
Exactly (Matthew 5:28). Pretty much means the Scouts are hypocrites for only focusing on the gay issue.
Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
When we come to the Lord we are to love Him above all else. We need to remember this. The usage of “Hate” here is to show how far below everything else is. When compared to the love we should have for the Lord we are to hate everything of this world.
1 John 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
This does not mean we are to hate other people in the world. It is only used as a comparison for the love we should have for Christ.
Below Christ everyone else is equal.
Considering your part of the post I passed on:
The reason was; they were using the Lord for personal financial gain. You find the same situation in these Prosperity Gospel Preachers. I remember hearing a guy on the radio whose line was, “Send me your money. I don't want to hear change jingling, I want to hear paper rustling.”
Jesus was very hard on the religious hypocrites. It wasn't because of a personal behavior, it was because of an abuse of authority – much like the scouts are doing.
No I am NOT!
People can change from their choices, but sexual orientation is not a choice.
You can choose to commit adultery.
You can choose to divorce.
You can choose to remarry.
You can choose to have sex.
You Cannot choose your orientation. The Scouts are banishing people because of their orientation.
ROC
Nobody really knows how many homosexuals there are in the world.
Most experts estimate around 10%. According to the Gallop polls (August 2002) most of the general population thinks closer to over 20%.
When the orientation is known, 95% of the abuse is caused by known Heterosexuals. That still means a reduction of threat if there are gay leaders.
This might help.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
I don't have a problem with someone dating someone much younger. When I speak of my moral compass I am relating it to how a 19 year old girl reminds me too much of my daughters or their friends.
What the Scouts are doing is CREATING a so called moral compass that rejects someone for how they were BORN.
Not a choice. A moral compass controls our choices.
It flies against their so called principle of being open to the religious beliefs of others. It is intolerance of how a person is born.
That makes the BSA morally corrupt.
I actually heard you quite clearly. You would not approve of that happening. Double standard.
It absolutely represents a danger. You are able to see that danger when it comes to your daughter and wishing to protect her from unwanted advances from males, but when it comes to homosexuals, you want them accepted by the BSA specifically for their sexuality, and then you deny the reality of the attraction and pretend that teenage homosexuals somehow suddenly become super-human and will never act on that attraction. That lack of logic is truly stunning. Fortunately, the BSA can see the danger when you can not. The BSA sees the reality of the real world while you deny it exists.
No, I just don't let technical details and theories get in the way of reality. On the other hand, you must use those technicalities of splitting hairs about age to support your argument. But it's funny that all through these discussions, you have always seemed to steer toward the leaders and away from the issue of gay teenage Scouts. The BSA policy is for everyone involved in Scouting, but the main focus of the media attacks on the Scouts revolve around their refusal to accept open homosexual boys into Scouting. I've laid out the arguments why that is at least 3 or 4 times, but you can not logically make the argument why it is fine to protect girls, which you are willing to do, but not boys.
You have a double standard that you apply one way when it comes to females and another when it comes to males. You can't seem to comprehend that the attraction is the same regardless of the orientation.
There are women in positions of leadership in Scouting. No argument from me there. But just like males, those women voluntarily adhere to the tenants of Scouting. They do not get to set their own rules. Just like males, the women must be heterosexual. Those are the rules the BSA has set. It doesn't matter whether you like them or agree with them. They have the right to set their own rules. And just like the males, they must take the same Youth Protection training and pass a background check. As I've already said, nothing is ever going to be 100%. It's possible that there may have even been cases where female Scout leaders were molesting Scouts....as I've said, the attraction is the same, regardless of the orientation, so I stay consistent in my statements. But to my knowledge, female misconduct has not been an issue in Scouting, male conduct has.
Lesbians are not allowed to be Scout leaders because they are gay. Being gay does not meet the requirement of the Scouts. Safety of the Scout is is to be taken in context with all other beliefs of Scouting, not an island unto itself for the sake of allowing someone to be a leader because they are a lesbian. In the case of lesbians, fear has nothing to do with it. Lesbians do not meet the moral code of conduct set forth by the scouts. It's as simple as that. The same is applied to male homosexuals. The BSA is being very consistent in applying their moral beliefs. It does not matter that you disagree.
And you're trying to tell me that a homosexual teenage male Scout will somehow just be able to set his attraction for other males aside. I'm telling you that's total and complete BS.
I know of no religion where the act of homosexuality is openly supported by the scripture of that religion. Various people in a given religion may well accept homosexuality, but that does not mean that the religious beliefs are being overruled. No one is forced to join the BSA against their will. If you do not agree with their rules, don't join. I don't know why that is so difficult for you to understand.
But just for the sake of argument, we'll assume you're right. Even if that was the case, there is no law that says the BSA must accept people of all religions. If the BSA wishes to be hypocritical in that regard, then you have no authority to tell them they can't. It apparently just drives you up the wall that people have the freedom to choose whom they associate with.
But you as a Christian apparently disagree with the Bible on that one it seems.
The people involved with a certain religion may indeed not have any problem with gays. That is a far different proposition than stating the actual written scripture of a religion supports homosexuality.
And I'm sorry, I had to chuckle at the Native American reference. I mean as we all know, the Native Americans have such a long and storied history with the promotion of homosexuality through the statements and writings of their leaders, that "two spirit people" could not possibly mean anything else. I'll turn off the sarcasm button now.
I could say the same about you for not practicing Matthew 7:1 Fortunately, the founding fathers also understood that not everyone agrees with everyone else about religion, and that's why we have the freedom of religion and association. A freedom which you would eliminate because you don't feel that it's right....except of course for those groups where you do feel it's right. Again, a double standard.
I guess the BSA will just have to live with the fact that you call them hypocrites (While being one yourself of course, (and me as well.) The fact is that we all are hypocrites in some fashion or another at some point. The difference is that neither you (nor I) get to be the arbiter of deciding who must adhere to what. Again, if you don't accept what you view to be their hypocrisy, then don't join. I'm sure they'll get along just fine without your acceptance, and will just have to live with the intolerance of your beliefs.
Well, there's at least one thing in your post that we both agree on.
Again, we agree, but if you're going to use a strict interpretation of adultery and divorce and apply it to the Scouts, then....dare, I say it....you are being a hypocrite for not using as strict a definition when taking the passage from Luke as to the words of Christ Himself. Again, you are applying a double standard to support your argument.
And like it or not, we have the freedom to reject something even if people are born that way. You many not like it, you may not agree with it, but that does nothing to mitigate the fact that we indeed have that right. Again, I'll go back to my example of a pedophile working in a day care center. The pedophile will tell you they were always attracted to children, that does not mean that we throw all caution to the wind for the sake of the acceptance of the pedophile.
I apply that same standard for the protection of the children in Scouting. You apply a cherry picked standard that denies reality and a set of rules must be developed for every situation because you have no core consistency.
Bottom line is the scouts use a moral compass that obviously differs to others but its their choice and the courts agreed that they can have that choice.
roc: Seems pretty simple to me.