Boy Scouts Allow Gays

[Oh Shoot]

I thought we had a gay POTUS

 

He's a black Asian, a gay apologist pussy, an abortionist, a unionist, an elitist socialist, and illegal alien. Truly representative of most of the downtrodden classes, all right.

 

I think he might finally have that Memorial Day vs Veteran's Day thang down now though, being such a quick study and all.

 

(sorry about the OT, haven't had a chance to rail in a week or so)

 

- OS

Edited May 27, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[daddyo]

 I suspect a new organization that is clear in their moral and religious beliefs will rise from this controversy.

 

One such organization already has....

 

http://www.onmyhonor.net/

[Guest 6.8 AR]

He's a black Asian, a gay apologist pussy, an abortionist, a unionist, an elitist socialist, and illegal alien. Truly representative of most of the downtrodden classes, all right.

 

I think he might finally have that Memorial Day vs Veteran's Day thang down now though, being such a quick study and all.

 

(sorry about the OT, haven't had a chance to rail in a week or so)

 

- OS

All being correct, Mac, which is why I don't understand why so many people don't understand that this crap is

all political, and does nothing good for our youth.

 

I remember hearing about a school somwhere(heard it on the radio and, as usual, forgot most of the details)

that required all the boys to go to school as girls, and the girls to go as boys. Now that's some world class

education! Someone want to tell me what that was all about, if not political indoctrination of some kind?

 

I'll bet, before his term is up, President Kardashian will wear a dress to a press conference.

[DaveTN]

One such organization already has....

 

http://www.onmyhonor.net/

 

http://www.onmyhonor.net/whats-next/

 

Interesting. It appears a line has been drawn in the sand. Scouts and their parents will make a decision based on their beliefs free from public opinion of those not involved.

 It’s a shame an honored origination like the BSA would allow themselves to possibly be taken down over gay rights. But it appears some are ready to stand up for their moral and religious beliefs.

[TMF]

Maybe someone can answer this for me....

Why is it so important for someone's identity to center around his or her sexuality?

Agreed, but I don't think that is the issue here. I get just as annoyed with all the focus on gayness in the media and the so-called marriage equality campaign.

Of course, I look at the gay movement over the past decade or two as an in your face campaign to normalize gay folks, and I guess it worked. There was a time you HAD to be in the closet for the sake of pride, career, safety, etc. That has changed now, and while it means nothing to many of us other than a sign of changing times, to gay folks I assume it's a very big deal to be able to live their lifestyle openly rather than in secret. However, all the gays I have encountered over the years aren't overly vocal about it. I have yet to meet one who insists on defining themselves based on whether or not they like to be penetrated.

With that, I'm pretty sure people don't care if someone's gay, and if they do that doesn't mean anything anymore, so I don't think it is necessary to be bombarded with gaydom every time I turn on the news. In my opinion the whole thing is designed to consolidate Democrat votes and split moderates and ultra conservatives.

Today, this subject, comes from BSoA. No one forced their decision to poll their members nor make the decision they did.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

http://www.onmyhonor.net/whats-next/

 

Interesting. It appears a line has been drawn in the sand. Scouts and their parents will make a decision based on their beliefs free from public opinion of those not involved.

 It’s a shame an honored origination like the BSA would allow themselves to possibly be taken down over gay rights. But it appears some are ready to stand up for their moral and religious beliefs.

I'm glad to hear that there are still good men to stand up against evil, aren't you?

 

Standing up for your morals and religious beliefs beats sounding like some 60's amoral "everything goes" hippy,

any day.

 

You can trace a large chunk of this moral relativism back to the counter culture movement that never was a majority

of anything, but caused a lot of mischief, up to and including murder, and evidently left some seeds planted in a lot

of peoples' minds that gave them some kind of perverted reason to accept emotional based thought as justification

for unjust and stupid laws. Also these little pirouettes that the gays are stabbing society with when it would be better

for them if they didn't.

 

Good men(and women) will prevail against this evil.

[daddyo]

Agreed, but I don't think that is the issue here. I get just as annoyed with all the focus on gayness in the media and the so-called marriage equality campaign.

Of course, I look at the gay movement over the past decade or two as an in your face campaign to normalize gay folks, and I guess it worked. There was a time you HAD to be in the closet for the sake of pride, career, safety, etc. That has changed now, and while it means nothing to many of us other than a sign of changing times, to gay folks I assume it's a very big deal to be able to live their lifestyle openly rather than in secret. However, all the gays I have encountered over the years aren't overly vocal about it. I have yet to meet one who insists on defining themselves based on whether or not they like to be penetrated.

With that, I'm pretty sure people don't care if someone's gay, and if they do that doesn't mean anything anymore, so I don't think it is necessary to be bombarded with gaydom every time I turn on the news. In my opinion the whole thing is designed to consolidate Democrat votes and split moderates and ultra conservatives.

Today, this subject, comes from BSoA. No one forced their decision to poll their members nor make the decision they did.

 

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.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Agreed, but I don't think that is the issue here. I get just as annoyed with all the focus on gayness in the media and the so-called marriage equality campaign.

Of course, I look at the gay movement over the past decade or two as an in your face campaign to normalize gay folks, and I guess it worked. There was a time you HAD to be in the closet for the sake of pride, career, safety, etc. That has changed now, and while it means nothing to many of us other than a sign of changing times, to gay folks I assume it's a very big deal to be able to live their lifestyle openly rather than in secret. However, all the gays I have encountered over the years aren't overly vocal about it. I have yet to meet one who insists on defining themselves based on whether or not they like to be penetrated.

With that, I'm pretty sure people don't care if someone's gay, and if they do that doesn't mean anything anymore, so I don't think it is necessary to be bombarded with gaydom every time I turn on the news. In my opinion the whole thing is designed to consolidate Democrat votes and split moderates and ultra conservatives.

Today, this subject, comes from BSoA. No one forced their decision to poll their members nor make the decision they did.

I remember around the 80's, working around several gays, never any problems. We seemed to get along just fine

and partied in the same crowds. Never was much overt crap about sexuality, other than passing joking about each

other. Most of them I have met, nowadays, don't seem to have changed one bit. The ones we hear about on the news

are the radical ones being used as pawns by the media and the left to further a cause.

 

This event with the Boy Scouts caving should not have happened. Purely political.

[daddyo]

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.

[TMF]

[


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.

That's like saying if some hot chick offers me sex that it's her fault I cheated since she tempted me. BSoA could have kept their policy and their dignity if they wanted. It may have resulted in less funding, but so what? Are we to blame the homo groups that the BSoA abandoned their principles? The decision ultimate lies with the organization and they chose. It wasn't a bunch of screaming queens thrusting this story into the news, it was the Boy Scouts' press release.

[daddyo]

That's like saying if some hot chick offers me sex that it's her fault I cheated since she tempted me.

 

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.

[Oh Shoot]

... But I have to agree that the ultimate decision rests with the BSA National leadership, ...

 

Maybe a bunch of them are gay!

 

- OS

[daddyo]

Maybe a bunch of them are gay!

 

- OS

 

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.

[TripleDigitRide]

Does anyone have proof that the decision to allow gay boys to openly participate in Scouts was based on financial reasons?

While I do remember reading that some donors have decided to stop funding the BSA due to their stance, I don't know the actual numbers. Assuming the dollars lost were significant enough to cause concern, I'm wondering why I don't recall seeing some sort of campaign on behalf of the BSA to raise funds to make up the difference. If this issue is truly as important as it appears here on TGO, I'm wondering why more people didn't put their money where their mouth is.

Does the BSA have a surplus of money at the end of each year, or are they barely scraping by? The reason I ask is, I wonder if this decision was made out of necessity. If they chose to continue denying openly gay Scouts, would they lose so much funding that they could no longer operate? Would a better option have been to simply dissolve the organization due to lack of funding?

Was there this much controversy from the BSA supporters in the mid-1970's, when the BSA finally did away with racial segregation? I recall reading that it took a court battle before the BSA would finally recognize black boy scouts as equals.

How about when they finally allowed women to become leaders innate late-80's? I was in the Scouts at this time, and I clearly remember this being a very hot and much-debated topic.

The point is, the BSA has evolved with the times, and in order to survive, they will have no choice but to continue doing so. I'm sure there were detractors when they allowed blacks and women to participate, so hopefully they will survive through this ordeal as well.

[daddyo]

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.

Edited May 27, 2013 by daddyo

[Oh Shoot]

Until it can be proven that being gay is 100% genetic, like race, the comparison of blacks/women to gays is apples and orangutans.

 

It doesn't have to be genetic to also not be by choice. At some point, one simply desires one or the other, or both.

 

Mr. Happy chose for me, and I couldn't talk him out of it if I tried, not now or when I was 12. Doesn't really matter if it was nature or nurture by the time that happens.

 

- OS

[RobertNashville]

Maybe someone can answer this for me....

 

Why is it so important for someone's identity to center around his or her sexuality?

Perhaps because there are obviously people who seem to think that homosexuals need to be excluded from life activities (like the BSA) that "normal" people want to participate in.

 

Why did the BSA ever think they needed to exclude gay boys from scouts?  What possible difference could it really make if, OMG, a "gay" was part of a scout troop?

[daddyo]

Perhaps because there are obviously people who seem to think that homosexuals need to be excluded from life activities (like the BSA) that "normal" people want to participate in.

 

Why did the BSA ever think they needed to exclude gay boys from scouts?  What possible difference could it really make if, OMG, a "gay" was part of a scout troop?

 

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.

Edited May 27, 2013 by daddyo

[TripleDigitRide]

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.

That wasn't my intent. My point was that the BSA has proven its willingness to be a discriminatory organization in the past, yet they survived the changes of the times. I doubt this ordeal will be no different.

[RobertNashville]

I've been searching and so far have not found out when BSA instituted this "policy" of dismissing gay boys from scouting...I suppose that when BSA started it was assumed either that boys would never identify themselves or be "gay but I have to assume that at some point in its history someone made the decision to have a formal policy yet all I can find are phrases like "long-standing policy".  I was in scouts from Cub Scouts through Boy scouts...I was never asked if I "liked girls"...was there some point in time after I left Scouts that they started asking that question of eight year olds???

 

I've also find references to the BSA excluding gay boys because they thought being "gay" was immoral. Okay; I can accept that they thought being gay as immoral but for me, that begs the question of why they created a specific policy about "gays" but not similar policies about other alleged moral failures - was "being gay" the only immorality they cared about and if so, why?

 

I guess where I'm going with this is that I see no justification for ever having such a policy of excluding "gays" from scouting in the first place.  Such issues as a young boy's perceived or alleged sexual preferences have ZERO place, in my humble opinion, ever being made an issue.  As such, this whole controversy about their decision to change their policy was completely avoidable and should have been.

Edited May 27, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Will Carry]

Why is it that, all of the sudden, gay people have the moral high ground?  Some basketball player comes out of the closet and he's all over the news and the president of the United States comes on TV and congratulates him for smokin a pole.  It's like being Gay is tantamount to sainthood.  I have a message for you, gay people are justed as sinful as heterosexuals. We all deserve to be treated equally. The president never called me for fathering a child.....I have no problem letting all boys join the BSA. 

Edited May 27, 2013 by Will Carry

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That wasn't my intent. My point was that the BSA has proven its willingness to be a discriminatory organization in the past, yet they survived the changes of the times. I doubt this ordeal will be no different.

No, the only thing it proved was it's willingness to be forced by outside political factions to bend over to

political correctness and further erode one's rights for another's. Private organizations, by their nature,

are discriminatory. Now, if you want to call that bad, I won't waste the time to argue. Go try to join the Belle

Meade Country Club. Discrimination is also found in other types of organizations like the Sons of the

American Revolution, which I am eligible to be a member of. Exclusions of groups are acceptible and are

discriminatory.

 

By the way you used the word "discriminatory", you make it all bad. That takes years of hearing crap and

believing it, without even realizing it. The word bias is completely discriminatory.

 

Words have meaning.

[TripleDigitRide]

While there will undoubtedly be some children who continue to make fun of gay scouts, I don't think it will be nearly as prominent as some may think. The younger generations are far more accepting and tolerant of gays. Like it or not, it's obviously becoming more mainstream by the day. They are seeing more openly gay students in their schools and circle of friends, on TV, in society in general. Remember, not every part of the country has the same deep-rooted history of prejudice and discrimination as the south. We sometimes get caught up in our own little bubble and forget there's a whole other world out there.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Why is it that, all of the sudden, gay people have the moral high ground?  Some basketball player comes out of the closet and he's all over the news and the president of the United States comes on TV and congratulates him for smokin a pole.  It's like being Gay is tantamount to sainthood.  I have a message for you, gay people are justed as sinful as heterosexuals. We all deserve to be treated equally. The president never called me for fathering a child.....I have no problem letting all boys join the BSA. 

They never had the moral high ground until they were co-opted by the left as "useful idiots" and propped up by

the media to the extent they are sitting on a smoking totem pole.

 

The list of useful idiots keeps on growing when those who think they are immune to this kind of thinking unintentionally

spew the left's propaganda without thinking more deeply than diving into a wading pool from the high board.

[RobertNashville]

They never had the moral high ground until they were co-opted by the left as "useful idiots" and propped up by

the media to the extent they are sitting on a smoking totem pole.

 

The list of useful idiots keeps on growing when those who think they are immune to this kind of thinking unintentionally

spew the left's propaganda without thinking more deeply than diving into a wading pool from the high board.

So if I think gay boys should have never been dismissed from BSA in the first place (and therefore have no problem with their decision to change their policy) I'm just a victim of gay/the left's propaganda? ;)  :dropjaw:

Edited May 27, 2013 by RobertNashville