daddyo

Coming to a major American city near you.

  I'm assuming that anyone who supports the BSA's decision to allow gays doesn't patronize Chik-fil-A.

  I really don't think it's about whether or not gay boys are allowed to participate. As you have pointed out, gays have already been a part of scouting for a long time, albeit in a clandestine manner.   My hope is that any promiscuity - and let's not kid ourselves, there will be - will be met with the appropriate punishment, not excluding expulsion from the troop. However, as we have seen recently regarding the case with the 18-year old lesbian committing statutory rape with a 14-year old girl, the gay lobby will quickly defend any and all alleged promiscuous behavior of gay scouts under the guise of discrimination against the gay youth.   This also sets up the gay scouts for being ostracized by non-gay scouts. As we all know, children can be cruel. And how long will it be before gay scout troops are created and even defended by organizations such as GLAAD and NAMBLA? Not that I would want my son to be part of such a group, but, of course, THAT kind of discrimination is A-OK because it's politically correct.   But I guess what concerns me more than anything is that the BSA succumbed to pressure and allowed a special interest group to dictate its membership policy.

Until it can be proven that being gay is 100% genetic, like race, the comparison of blacks/women to gays is apples and orangutans.   Trying to equate sex or race to behavior just doesn't work.

  I know that this was not your intent, but it did remind me that I've been involved in many discussions of this same topic, and those discussions almost always devolved into accusations by the gay participants that the ones ideologically opposed to it are somehow closet queens and really gay themselves, which made absolutely no sense to me.   But it did tell me that they had run out of anything intelligent to say.

  Not really the same thing at all. But I have to agree that the ultimate decision rests with the BSA National leadership, and there is no doubt that they turned their backs on what I believe, from my own experience, to be the vast majority of council leadership, district and unit leadership, and parents.

The sad thing is that a significant amount of resources in time and money was spent dealing with the attack from the organized gay left, so the Scouting program as a whole suffered for it. And that had a direct impact on the quality of the program.   And who was directly impacted by it? The Scouts, the very reason the BSA exists in the first place.   Outrageous.

  I pretty much agree with everything except the last statement. Extreme political pressure and the threat of withholding funding is coercion. In the 10 years I spent as a registered leader, this subject came up numerous times, so it has been on the radar of the BSA for quite a while.   Had there been little or no pressure from gay-friendly organizations, including those corporations who demanded that the BSA change or lose funding, I highly doubt that the poll would have happened at all or that the membership policy would have changed.

  One such organization already has....   http://www.onmyhonor.net/

Maybe someone can answer this for me....   Why is it so important for someone's identity to center around his or her sexuality?   I don't really make it a point to identify myself as heterosexual. From my observation by reading and listening to the news, it seems as though the majority of gays think that their sexual preference is the most important thing in their life.   The way things are going in our society, one day we will have "Gay History Month" and have a gay POTUS. I realize that I am part of a dying breed, but I just hope I'm dead and gone by then. Seriously.

  Girl Scouts changed their membership requirements some years ago I believe. That's why I don't buy Girl Scout cookies anymore.

What's happening with the BSA is just symptomatic of a society in decline.   Anyone who's been involved with Scouting in the past decade has seen this coming. We knew it was a matter of time. I'm just glad my son got through the program before it went down the tubes.

  Good question, and I believe we're going to see, over the next few months, the consequences of selling out.

  The Pardner Protector is what I have. I find it very reliable and sturdy, and like the OP, I didn't want to sink a lot of money into something that would pretty much just sit in the corner.

  This is the root of the problem.... the gay lobby has put so much political pressure on the BSA that they apparently felt like they had no choice but change the membership standards. The pressure has come mostly in the form of funding from corporations that already have a "non-discrimination" policy.   It's bullying, plain and simple. Why force an existing group to change? Why not just start your own organization and leave the rest of us alone?

  Yes, I'm very familiar with it since I was a registered leader for 10 years. And no, they don't dictate it (that's never been the claim anyway), but they do encourage it, hence the religious awards.   And if they encourage it, then they aren't "a-religious", whatever that means.

  Then what about these?   http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Awards/ReligiousAwards.aspx   "A Scout is reverent. He is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties and respects the convictions of others in matters of custom and religion."

  Don't make the same mistake that they do and let your emotions take over. "Homophobe" is just that - a label born out of pure emotion to demonize those of us who don't think that the homosexual lifestyle is normal.

  I made no reference as to what was acceptable or unacceptable to God. You did.

  Yes, I'll agree that the "bigot" and "homophobe" labels haven't been thrown out, and rightfully so.

  I didn't see anything in Joesig's post that even remotely suggested an assumption that all homosexuals are child molesters.

  You made the claim that God differentiates between sin. All I was asking was biblical evidence to support it. That's not the same thing as trying to turn this into a theological discussion.

  I don't believe anyone here is making that assumption, but why create the opportunity?

  Do you have biblical evidence to support what you are saying?

  Both are equally unacceptable.