# Lifestyles & Discussion > Open Discussion >  Boy Scouts vote to allow gay members

## Anti Federalist

*Boy Scouts vote to allow gay members*

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...-vote/2352077/

Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY6:20 p.m. EDT May 23, 2013

The Boy Scouts of America voted Thursday to allow gay youth to participate in scouting. The historic vote, with 60% in favor, signals another shift in American public opinion about homosexuality but still leaves the organization with many future hurdles.

----------


## Anti Federalist

AmeriKa:

Free to smoke dick.

Privacy to have an abortion.

Not so much for anything else.

----------


## TaftFan

Dumbass stupidity bowing to public pressure.

----------


## sailingaway

Meh. The biggest troop in Los Angeles has annually sent a memo to national reiterating that they are staying in scouts to get change from within, strictly follow youth protection procedures including never letting a child sleep in a tent with an adult other than parent, and that they absolutely refuse to ban gay scouts or leaders as a class.  Note that the problems BSA ever had were with people called straight, in any event.

If it is voluntary change, I am all for it.  I do think private organizations have the right to make their own rules.

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

Who cares? There's no reason gays shouldn't be allowed in the boy scouts, if they are indeed boys.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> If it is voluntary change, I am all for it.


Well, I'm not so sure a generation of badgering, heckling, lawsuits and threats of legal action are what I would call "voluntary".

Not the biggest issue for me, Scouting comes out of the "progressive" era, and is much too focused on loyalty to the state.

Scouting will probably go the way of most "mainstream" religions in another 20 years.

----------


## sailingaway

scouting teaches self reliance and skills. If it becomes mainstream it will teach fear and avoidance, not gun safety and survival.

----------


## V3n

It looks like it is still under debate whether they are a public organization or a private one.  They like to say they're private, but they accept tax perks and other fiduciary perks from State and Federal government - accepting one red cent from the Feds means they are not private in my book.

If they were private - I agree they should have the right to accept or deny whomever they want on any basis they want.
If they are public - I think they should have to accept gays.

I think they are public, and I view this as a victory.  IMO

----------


## donnay

This is not the country I was born in--seriously!  

They are really jamming this life-style down our throats to try and divide this country further.  It is neither government nor the people's business what people do behind closed doors. 

They are seriously exploiting homosexuals anymore.  If I were a homosexual I would take offense at their exploitation.

The only way, IMHO to stop this is to not give-in to it.  This is nothing more than a hijacked version of the Boy Scouts that I remembered growing up around.  Boys went into boy scouts to learn skills and survival.  Of course TPTB don't want boys learning that!!!

----------


## donnay

> scouting teaches self reliance and skills. If it becomes mainstream it will teach fear and avoidance, not gun safety and survival.



On the contrary they are teaching boys that guns need to be controlled.  

This is what they are training boys to be...




> The Explorers program, a coeducational affiliate of the Boy Scouts of America that began 60 years ago, is training thousands of young people in *skills used to confront terrorism, illegal immigration and escalating border violence* — an intense ratcheting up of one of the group’s longtime missions to prepare youths for more traditional jobs as police officers and firefighters. 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/us...ers.html?_r=2&

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

I don't think this is that big of a deal, either way. But I think the Boy Scouts made the right decision.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

Death of a once-proud organization.  All they did was piss off the side that liked them, the other side will still hate them no matter how much they pander to them.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

Seems kind of an usual topic for AF, but I am not necessarily disapprove.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It looks like it is still under debate whether they are a public organization or a private one.  They like to say they're private, but they accept tax perks and other fiduciary perks from State and Federal government - accepting one red cent from the Feds means they are not private in my book.
> 
> If they were private - I agree they should have the right to accept or deny whomever they want on any basis they want.
> If they are public - I think they should have to accept gays.
> 
> I think they are public, and I view this as a victory.  IMO


If I get financial aid to go to school, am I public property?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Seems kind of an usual topic for AF, but I am not necessarily disapprove.


You do mean, *UN*usual, am I right?

Because I normally steer clear of such topics...

----------


## V3n

> If I get financial aid to go to school, am I public property?


You're not an organization.

----------


## Keith and stuff

Wow at some of the comments in this thread. If I was a moderator, I'd put it in Hot Topic just to hide it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This is not the country I was born in--seriously!  
> 
> They are really jamming this life-style down our throats to try and divide this country further.  It is neither government nor the people's business what people due behind closed doors. 
> 
> They are seriously exploiting homosexuals anymore.  If I were a homosexual I would take offense at their exploitation.
> 
> The only way, IMHO to stop this is to not give-in to it.  This is nothing more than a hijacked version of the Boy Scouts that I remembered growing up around.  Boys went into boy scouts to learn skills and survival.  Of course TPTB don't want boys learning that!!!


I still have my scouts handbook (I was only in it for a year or so, and only got one badge).  If you get a handbook off ebay or something, you can teach your sons all that stuff without sending them off with a pervy scout leader.

----------


## jonhowe

As a former scout, good on them.


Again, this is not about "allowing gays". It's about allowing kids who are gay to not have to hide it. Several of my former scouting friends are now openly gay, post scouts. If you aren't comfortable with gays (well, thats your problem), at least now you know who they are.


Edit: My first introduction to guns was in scouts. Moved me from being terrified of them to being a great shot, and a safe shooter.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> As a former scout, good on them.
> 
> 
> Again, this is not about "allowing gays". It's about allowing kids who are gay to not have to hide it. Several of my former scouting friends are now openly gay, post scouts. If you aren't comfortable with gays (well, thats your problem), at least now you know who they are.


I wasn't aware there was a large crowd of 8-year-old homosexuals in the Boy Scouts clamoring for a chance to come out.

----------


## V3n

> I wasn't aware there was a large crowd of 8-year-old homosexuals in the Boy Scouts clamoring for a chance to come out.


Because they were never allowed to speak up until now.

----------


## donnay

> Wow at some of the comments in this thread. If I was a moderator, I'd put it in Hot Topic just to hide it.


Huh? What are you talking about?

----------


## familydog

I am disheartened by this decision. As a former (and rehabilitated) Boy Scout, I can assure everyone that we had no freewill or willpower. It was a very corrupting time in my life. All homosexuals did was try to seduce us and we eventually succumb to the gay side. All they think about is sex. Once a gay replaced my Scout Manual with homosexual erotica. The BSA just ensured the destruction of generations.

----------


## jonhowe

> I wasn't aware there was a large crowd of 8-year-old homosexuals in the Boy Scouts clamoring for a chance to come out.


First of all, that's a non point. 8 year olds are cub scouts.

Second of all, I don't think most people realize they're gay until later in life than 8... Should a 17 year old, who's pouring hours into community service and self improvement, be required to lie about his sexuality? Clearly, the BSA no longer thinks so.

Again: good on them.


Please note: if this had happened due to some government mandate, I'd be livid. This is a private organization making a wise decision.

----------


## donnay

> I still have my scouts handbook (I was only in it for a year or so, and only got one badge).  If you get a handbook off ebay or something, you can teach your sons all that stuff without sending them off with a pervy scout leader.



I totally agree.

----------


## sailingaway

> On the contrary they are teaching boys that guns need to be controlled.  
> 
> This is what they are training boys to be...


that's the NYTimes disinformation, an anti scouting source if there ever was one.

----------


## jonhowe

> I am disheartened by this decision. As a former (and rehabilitated) Boy Scout, I can assure everyone that we had no freewill or willpower. It was a very corrupting time in my life. All homosexuals did was try to seduce us and we eventually succumb to the gay side. All they think about is sex. Once a gay replaced my Scout Manual with homosexual erotica. The BSA just ensured the destruction of generations.


That sounds like sexual harassment, or even borderline molestation if it was an adult. I think you have a whole separate issue there my friend.

----------


## Spikender

> I am disheartened by this decision. As a former (and rehabilitated) Boy Scout, I can assure everyone that we had no freewill or willpower. It was a very corrupting time in my life. All homosexuals did was try to seduce us and we eventually succumb to the gay side. All they think about is sex. Once a gay replaced my Scout Manual with homosexual erotica. The BSA just ensured the destruction of generations.


This has to be trolling.

----------


## sailingaway

> You're not an organization.


they get it because they do stuff the govt wants out there and people aren't going to govt institutions for their information. YOu want an organization to do stuff, and fund it, like the church hospitals with vaccinations, you don't get to tell them to perform abortions in my opinion. Or what membership to have. In my mind there is no question that they are private, and they made a decision here.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> that's the NYTimes disinformation, an anti scouting source if there ever was one.


Which is why I think RonPaulFaninGA makes a valid point.

By capitulating on this decision, the NYT and the rest now smell blood in the water, and they'll redouble their efforts.

And Scouting will cease to be in another 20 years.

Which was, of course, the point.

----------


## BlackTerrel

Never knew much about the boy scouts or cared to... but this is a sellout move.  Giving in to bullying.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> By capitulating on this decision, the NYT and the rest now smell blood in the water, and they'll redouble their efforts.
> 
> And Scouting will cease to be in another 20 years.
> 
> Which was, of course, the point.


Right, they made the same mistake as The Eastern Sports and Outdoors Show: they don't know their audience, who butters their bread.

The crowd that hates the Boy Scouts, gays, the media, atheists, etc., will keep on hating them.

The crowd that likes them, just got a big reason to stop liking them.

They chose to pander to groups that will always hate them, and it's going to cost them.

----------


## jonhowe

> Which was, of course, the point.



As a long supporter of this move, I can assure you: that was not the point.

In 20 years, when being gay will be be much, much less of a stigma, this ensures the BSA won't die out.

----------


## sailingaway

> As a long supporter of this move, I can assure you: that was not the point.
> 
> In 20 years, when being gay will be be much, much less of a stigma, this ensures the BSA won't die out.


It was a gradual thing, where the ban became more embarrassing than a source of pride to increasing portions of its membership. Then it was voted out. That is how membership of any private group changes things over time.

----------


## jonhowe

> It was a gradual thing, where the ban became more embarrassing than a source of pride to increasing portions of its membership. Then it was voted out. That is how membership of any private group changes things over time.


Exactly.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> It was a gradual thing, where the ban became more embarrassing than a source of pride to increasing portions of its membership. Then it was voted out. That is how membership of any private group changes things over time.


Please.  It'd still be there if the media wasn't constantly on them over this.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> AmeriKa:
> 
> Free to smoke dick.
> 
> Privacy to have an abortion.
> 
> Not so much for anything else.


AF gets the real point.  I love when I see someone that actually understands this.  

Bottom line is BSA can do whatever they want, and parents don't have to associate with them.

----------


## sailingaway

> Please.  It'd still be there if the media wasn't constantly on them over this.


Really not sure about that.  The youth protection applies regardless of gender or identity or persuasion, and that is the only way it works, because child predators cover up those feelings from decent folks of whatever gender identity or persuasion.  I repeat that the sex scandals in Boy Scouts were all by leaders thought by all to be straight.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You do mean, *UN*usual, am I right?
> 
> Because I normally steer clear of such topics...


Yes, that.

----------


## sailingaway

> AF gets the real point.  I love when I see someone that actually understands this.  
> 
> Bottom line is BSA can do whatever they want, and parents don't have to associate with them.


I do dislike the idea that 'society' has a say in what private people can decide and if it were a law passed, I'd be avidly against it.

----------


## DamianTV

So I havent read the rest of the posts in this thread so far.  But I only have one question.

Why is this even subject to a vote period?  This is yet another case where the lack of privacy (sexual orientation is PRIVATE information) is used to determine someones eligibility based on the determination by a Majority determining if they have PERMISSION to be a part of a group?




> "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within limits drawn around us 
> by the equal rights of others.  I do not add "within the limits of the law", because law is 
> often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."  
> 
> -Thomas Jefferson


Being ALLOWED PERMISSION by ANY group is NOT what I would call Rightful Liberty.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You're not an organization.


Does it matter?  What's the difference between an individual and a group of individuals that have a stated purpose?

----------


## wizardwatson

Finally I can get in!

Thanks for the info OP!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> So I havent read the rest of the posts in this thread so far.  But I only have one question.
> 
> Why is this even subject to a vote period?  This is yet another case where the lack of privacy (sexual orientation is PRIVATE information) is used to determine someones eligibility based on the determination by a Majority determining if they have PERMISSION to be a part of a group?
> 
> 
> 
> Being ALLOWED PERMISSION by ANY group is NOT what I would call Rightful Liberty.


Even if it's permission to be a part of that same group?  Do groups of people not have the freedom to be selective when it comes to who joins their organizations?

----------


## sailingaway

> So I havent read the rest of the posts in this thread so far.  But I only have one question.
> 
> Why is this even subject to a vote period?  This is yet another case where the lack of privacy (sexual orientation is PRIVATE information) is used to determine someones eligibility based on the determination by a Majority determining if they have PERMISSION to be a part of a group?
> 
> 
> 
> Being ALLOWED PERMISSION by ANY group is NOT what I would call Rightful Liberty.


people who create organization also can create restrictions on whom they want to associate with. Bigoted or not, private preferences are part of liberty. If you can't choose 'no' you can't choose, period.

----------


## donnay

> that's the NYTimes disinformation, an anti scouting source if there ever was one.



You'll get no disagreement from me.  The article was written nevertheless and Obama called for a “Civilian National Security Force.”  

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index...icle/47844rce:

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

Basically, what they're doing, is ceding a little ground without fully giving in, and in the end they're going to please no one.  The Boy Scouts are crazy if they think doing this will tone down the media pressure for them to have openly gay Scout Leaders.

----------


## jmdrake

> I repeat that the sex scandals in Boy Scouts were all by leaders thought by all to be straight.


Ummmmm....^that really means absolutely nothing.  All sex scandals in Boy Scouts were also done by leaders thought not to be pedophiles as well.  And before someone jumps in with the "Don't compare gays to pedophiles" rant, the point that I'm making is that there really is no relevance to sex scandals and who was thought to be what.

----------


## jmdrake

Anyhow, the free market will deal with it.  There are already church affiliated scout like groups such as the Royal Rangers or the Pathfinders.  The scout troops that really have an issue with this will gravitate to established groups like that or create their own group.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Ummmmm....^that really means absolutely nothing.  All sex scandals in Boy Scouts were also done by leaders thought not to be pedophiles as well.  And before someone jumps in with the "Don't compare gays to pedophiles" rant, the point that I'm making is that there really is no relevance to sex scandals and who was thought to be what.


I agree.  I don't think it's like an 8 yr old boy is going to get touched in his sleep by a leader in the dark of night and go, "You know I would, but I'm just not gay."

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Huh? What are you talking about?


About half of the comments in this thread are pretty messed up in my opinion. The Boy Scouts gets lots of funding from government. It acts as an extension of the government. Of course it should discriminate against kids that they think are gay. There is no question, IMO. If it didn't get so much government funding, them there might be an interesting discussion here but as it is, it's an open and shut case.

----------


## Spikender

> About half of the comments in this thread are pretty messed up in my opinion. The Boy Scouts gets lots of funding from government. It acts as an extension of the government. *Of course it should discriminate against kids that they think are gay.* There is no question, IMO. If it didn't get so much government funding, them there might be an interesting discussion here but as it is, it's an open and shut case.


What?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> As a long supporter of this move, I can assure you: that was not the point.
> 
> In 20 years, when being gay will be be much, much less of a stigma, this ensures the BSA won't die out.


I hardly see it as any stigma at all.

Everything I see is making it cause for celebration, actually.

But this was the same argument that was used when the "mainline" churches capitulated on this issue 20 years ago.

And they are shadows of what they once were.

But, like SA said at the outset, it's a "meh" kind of issue for me...I never cared for the Scouts unquestioned fealty to State and Flag anyways, so it's probably a good thing they'll cease to be after a while.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> I repeat that the sex scandals in Boy Scouts were all by leaders thought by all to be straight.


I repeat: the Boy Scouts, like the Catholic priests thing, were of men preying on boys.  Male-on-male attraction, same-sex; there's a word for that, now what is it....

----------


## Anti Federalist

dupe post...

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Basically, what they're doing, is ceding a little ground without fully giving in, and in the end they're going to please no one.  The Boy Scouts are crazy if they think doing this will tone down the media pressure for them to have openly gay Scout Leaders.


You're absolutely right.  There is never enough gayness in American culture, apparently.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> What?


I think he forgot a "not".

LOL

----------


## Spikender

> I think he forgot a "not".
> 
> LOL


I thought so.

But it was just too funny not to put in bold lettering.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Anyhow, the free market will deal with it.  There are already church affiliated scout like groups such as the Royal Rangers or the Pathfinders.  The scout troops that really have an issue with this will gravitate to established groups like that or create their own group.


I'm not so sure if it will.  For one, we don't really have a free market in America anymore.  Secondly, the Scouts have been threatened with legal action for a long time, and it's not about to stop.  I wouldn't count on the free market when there is so much politics mixed up in this.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> About half of the comments in this thread are pretty messed up in my opinion. The Boy Scouts gets lots of funding from government. It acts as an extension of the government. Of course it should discriminate against kids that they think are gay. There is no question, IMO. If it didn't get so much government funding, them there might be an interesting discussion here but as it is, it's an open and shut case.


Government has infected *everything*, there is nothing it has not touched, so therefore *everything* is subject to government oversight and regulation.

"You didn't build that".

----------


## Spikender

> Government has infected *everything*, *there is nothing it has not touched*, so therefore *everything* is subject to government oversight and regulation.
> 
> "You didn't build that".


I would say that it never touched my balls, but then I remembered the TSA.

Dang it.

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm not so sure if it will.  For one, we don't really have a free market in America anymore.  Secondly, the Scouts have been threatened with legal action for a long time, and it's not about to stop.  I wouldn't count on the free market when there is so much politics mixed up in this.


http://royalrangers.com/

http://www.pathfindersonline.org/

Both of the above organizations have been around for decades.  The Pathfinders since 1930 and the Royal Rangers since 1962.  As many scout troops are church affiliated, I expect to see growth in both of these groups, especially the Rangers.  (The Royal Rangers are non-denominational).  Since both groups are expressly religious, they aren't subject to the same kind legal pressures the scouts faced.  So in a few years we'll see how serious people are about the issue.  But as far as I'm concerned scouting died when girl scout troops started camping in malls.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Government has infected *everything*, there is nothing it has not touched, so therefore *everything* is subject to government oversight and regulation.
> 
> "You didn't build that".


And the sheeple begged for it.   IIRC, even cap guns were banned at the grade school I went to.  TPTB have pretty much banned boyhood (and childhood in general) for us lay persons.  Epic fail.

ETA:  Do you happen to know if average boys are allowed to have slingshots anymore?  If not, I shed a tear for teh boys.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> And the sheeple begged for it.   IIRC, even cap guns were banned at the grade school I went to.  TPTB have pretty much banned boyhood (and childhood in general) for us lay persons.  Epic fail.
> 
> ETA:  *Do you happen to know if average boys are allowed to have slingshots anymore?*  If not, I shed a tear for teh boys.


Agressive war on boyhood is aggresive.

I can't say for sure, but my guess is that any boy walking around with or going into school with a slingshot would be arrested.

----------


## V3n

> Does it matter?  What's the difference between an individual and a group of individuals that have a stated purpose?


Corporations are people, my friend?

If you pay taxes, and if you're able to get some of that back in the form of financial aid, then good for you.

If you're a tax-exempt organization taking Federal money, then you play by Federal rules.

Besides, as others have pointed, and I completely overlooked - they're calling this a "private" organization making a private decision - Feds weren't involved.  They exercised their free will and took a vote.  Even better.

----------


## Krzysztof Lesiak

Don't care that much, but if I were a Scout ( I joined for only a year), I would not agree with this new policy. Uncomfortable to be sharing a tent or cabin with people who are openly gay.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Agressive war on boyhood is aggresive.
> 
> I can't say for sure, but my guess is that any boy walking around with or going into school with a slingshot would be arrested.


And Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn would have been arrested for skinny dipping and would have ended up on a sex offenders list.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Don't care that much, but if I were a Scout ( I joined for only a year), I would not agree with this new policy. Uncomfortable to be sharing a tent or cabin with people who are openly gay.


If they are going to do this, why not just put the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts together and call the organization "The Scouts?"

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> And Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn would have been arrested for skinny dipping and would have ended up on a sex offenders list.


And Mark Twain for writing about it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

The homosexual propaganda machine is a force in this world.

----------


## Root

I must of had a very different experience in Scouts. 

I learned how to shoot a gun and a bow/arrow.  I even entered scout rifle tournaments and did rather well. 
I had my first beer, liquor and weed experiences on Scout camping trips. First porn too.
I learned how to make shelter and the use of good knots (dont forget frapping). 

I value those years and experiences. I made lifelong friendships.  The person who reached out to be friends with me, we wound up actually working for the same company, but in very different roles. We have been friends for 30 something years and still get together once a month just the two of us. 

I would have perferred the BSA to basically take no approach, and leave it up to the local councils to decide what is best for their different troops, but alas, it's too late for that.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> The homosexual propaganda machine is a force in this world.


In this country, not the whole world.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/1...n-georgia.html

----------


## jonhowe

> I hardly see it as any stigma at all.


Willful ignorance on your part. Go read some comments on FoxNews on this development:

"whats next , bull dyke carpet munchers in the girl scouts ?"
"Sick sick!!"
"The new Boy Scout leader is going to be, Herbert the Pedophile from family guy. An his first order of business is to move the Scout HQ to Spooner St. Ever new Scout get a Pope on the rope soap bar."
"most parents really don't want their sons hanging out with gay boys !"
"Bring your limp wrists and your lisps."
"sadly another sign the world is coming to an end!!"
"Boy Scouts are now ALL Abominations..."
"Sin is sin"
"Kids, when you go to boy scout camp, and you are in the shower. If you drop the soap, whatever you do, DO NOT PICK IT UP."
"NAMBLA scouts!? Disgusting!!"


That took me less than 60 seconds to compile. I encourage you to examine the other 4100+ comments, 75% of which are similar or worse.

You say there is no stigma because it is inconvenient for your narrative.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> I hardly see it as any stigma at all.
> 
> Everything I see is making it cause for celebration, actually.
> 
> But this was the same argument that was used when the "mainline" churches capitulated on this issue 20 years ago.
> 
> And they are shadows of what they once were.
> 
> But, like SA said at the outset, it's a "meh" kind of issue for me...I never cared for the Scouts unquestioned fealty to State and Flag anyways, so it's probably a good thing they'll cease to be after a while.


This.

Next we will have a big celebration when groups make it part of their charter to accept furies.

Look I don't really give a $#@! if people are gay.  I don't care if you're a furry or have a foot fetish, or like to take a dump on someone's chest.  It's just $#@!ing annoying when we're supposed to celebrate how awesome this is or how it's bigoted to not believe this is 100% normal.... here's a clue - it isn't.

----------


## QuickZ06

> Seems kind of an usual topic for AF, but I am not necessarily disapprove.





> You do mean, *UN*usual, am I right?
> 
> Because I normally steer clear of such topics...


Lol and the forum grammar nazi goes down, seriously from here on out you cannot say $#@! as you are a hypocrite of your own game.

----------


## jmdrake

> If they are going to do this, why not just put the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts together and call the organization "The Scouts?"


Because clearly only heteros actually act on their sexual attractions duh! /sarc

----------


## donnay

> If they are going to do this, why not just put the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts together and call the organization "The Scouts?"


Instead of Eagle Scouts call them Equal Scouts.  <------I hope I am not giving them any ideas!

----------


## Ender

I've known a lot of gays- some are very Christian and are celibate; some are just trying to live their life.

A good friend of mine committed suicide because he was gay and loved his church- didn't work for him.

I see nothing wrong in accepting all boys into the Boy Scouts- just follow the rules.

----------


## jmdrake

> I would have perferred the BSA to basically take no approach, and leave it up to the local councils to decide what is best for their different troops, but alas, it's too late for that.


That would have made the most sense.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> Really not sure about that.  The youth protection applies regardless of gender or identity or persuasion, and that is the only way it works, because child predators cover up those feelings from decent folks of whatever gender identity or persuasion.  I repeat that the sex scandals in Boy Scouts were all by leaders thought by all to be straight.


I will second that.  My older brother was molested (raped), for years, often at gunpoint, by a scout leader named Kevin who was straight and a former cop.  If you knew this guy, you would never suspect in a million years that he was a child predator, and he certainly didn't act gay.  Of course being gay and being a pedophile are two completely separate things, and this is my point.  This guy was a fine upstanding manly man that everyone looked up to.  Who liked to rape little boys.

Those who are "out" are certainly not interested in little kids.  At least not any gay person I've ever known.

Lastly as a former scout myself, I don't see why this should change anything.  All it means is that when little Joey recites the Scout Law, if he's gay, he doesn't have to feel this terrible dread of guilt in his heart every time he says the first item on the list:  Trustworthy.  People shouldn't have to lie, or hide who they are or pretend they're something they're not simply to be accepted by others and treated with the bare minimum amount of respect as a human being.  It's two thousand $#@!ing thirteen, already.

You don't have to like other people or approve of what they do, but at least try not to be an $#@! to others when they've done nothing to you to deserve it.  Nobody's destroying America.  (Well they are, but not the gays.  That credit goes to our leaders and their corporate puppet masters.)  People just want freedom to be who they are.  Something I think all of us claim to want for ourselves as well.

----------


## jonhowe

Also, keep in mind that even in explorer scouts (which is co-ed, 14-21 years old, part of BSA), you arent allowed to have sex with each other...

This is not saying "ok, lets have gay sex at Philmont [scout ranch]", it's saying that you don't have to pretend not to be gay every thursday night. At least, we had our meetings on thursdays.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Willful ignorance on your part. Go read some comments on FoxNews on this development:
> 
> You say there is no stigma because it is inconvenient for your narrative.


I have no narrative and care very little about it, actually.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Lol and the forum grammar nazi goes down, seriously from here on out you cannot say $#@! as you are a hypocrite of your own game.


What?

What did I do now?

----------


## muh_roads

I don't understand why people are against this?  Liberty means putting up with the things you don't agree with.

Tom Dickin' Harry isn't going to make me want to dick Harry as well.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I don't understand why people are against this?  
> 
> *Liberty means putting up with the things you don't agree with*.
> 
> Tom Dickin' Harry isn't going to make me want to dick Harry as well.


Maybe because BSA got pressured into doing this because other people were not willing to put up with the idea that they could exclude gay boys if they wanted to.

----------


## jkr

"AmeriKa:

Free to smoke dick.

Privacy to have an abortion.

Not so much for anything else. "


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You're absolutely right.  There is never enough gayness in American culture, apparently.


LOLZ!!  That strikes me as very funny for some reason.

----------


## Wooden Indian

Here's a solution...

I don't agree with their decision. Therefore, I choose to not send my kid to Scouts.

-or

I applaud their decision. My child will continue to be a Scout if he so wishes.

Whoa... Heavy stuff, eh?

----------


## IndianaPolitico

I do not believe that it is simply public pressure, money has a lot to do with it. I am a former scout, and current scout leader. The people "higher up" the line have very well paying jobs, and a good amount of money is being made off of scouting. (A look at the prices of uniforms and other "official" supplies vouch for that.) I have nicknamed it the Boy Scout Industrial complex. The big money pressured the BSA to make this decision and they bowed to it.

----------


## Matthew5

As a Scout leader myself, I find it odd that they found 61% in favor considering the major conservative evangelicals and Mormons make up a bulk of charters. Regardless of your views on homosexuality, this was about the most asinine way to handle this policy. Essentially they're forcing religious organizations to be at risk (including forcing acceptance of homosexuality on them) and they're pretending that gay Scouts magically stop being gay when they turn 18. I've never seen such an impractical and inconsiderate (to both sides) policy put into place in a private organization. 

Their desire for inclusivity and progressiveness has created a mess for the Troop leaders. How can we teach our boys that a Scout is brave with the lot of these cowards?

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

Boy Scouts of America following the Scouts of Canada on the path to irrelevancy:

----------


## talkingpointes

Why is it that 10 years ago gays didn't bother me at all, yet now days I feel like they are all over the place pushing their bull$#@! on everyone. Be tolerant so when some guy pinches your sons ass he can just laugh it off. I don't think so, furthermore I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that my kids would shower with them in the later years. That is a weird but scary thought.

----------


## James Madison

Amerika in 2013:

Abortion on Demand
Free Birth Control
Teh Gaeyz for Everyone

75 Years in a Rape Cage for Growing a Plant

----------


## pathtofreedom

They are a gay organization anyways.

----------


## puppetmaster

Next.....men taking Brownies out on camping trips.......makes as much sense if they let gays take boys camping.

----------


## muh_roads

> 75 Years in a Rape Cage for Growing a Plant


It won't be for too much longer.  I give it 10 years.  Just need more old people to die off.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> It won't be for too much longer.  I give it 10 years.  Just need more old people to die off.


Wow...

As an old fart, kiss my ass.

----------


## talkingpointes

> Wow...
> 
> As an old fart, kiss my ass.


Go to taco bell it will give that old fart some new breath. MMM /sarc (buddies dad always called it fast farts)

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Go to taco bell it will give that old fart some new breath. MMM /sarc (buddies dad always called it fast farts)


Taco Smell.

----------


## James Madison

> It won't be for too much longer.  I give it 10 years.  Just need more old people to die off.


There's no finanical or political incentive to restrict gay marriage. Rather, it serves as an excellent wedge issue that allows the upper membership of both parties to deflect criticism, while consolidating power. Democrats can have 'marriage equality' as their great rallying cry; Republicans can unify under the banner of 'traditional values'. For both parties, it's a marvelously effective, yet devilishly simple, way to avoid real issues like a failing economy, rampant indebtedness, perpetual warfare abroad, and the loss of civil liberties at home. 

Ending drug prohibition, on the other hand, affords no such benefits because all people would profit, save for those who profit from the prohibition itself.

----------


## Ranger29860

> Next.....men taking Brownies out on camping trips.......makes as much sense if they let gays take boys camping.





> Be tolerant so when some guy pinches your sons ass he can just laugh it off. I don't think so, furthermore I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that my kids would shower with them in the later years. That is a weird but scary thought.



Really? Still after all this time people still equate homosexuals to child molesters?

----------


## Matt Collins

> Dumbass stupidity bowing to public pressure.


Yeah, how disappointing

----------


## Matt Collins

> Ibut they accept tax perks and other fiduciary perks from State and Federal government - accepting one red cent from the Feds means they are not private in my book.


Uhhh I don't think they do... Please cite your sources

----------


## Matt Collins

> It was a gradual thing, where the ban became more embarrassing than a source of pride to increasing portions of its membership. Then it was voted out. That is how membership of any private group changes things over time.


They shouldn't change principle based on popularity. That'd be like Ron Paul taking an opinion poll to find out how to cast a vote in Congress

----------


## Matt Collins

> Also, keep in mind that even in explorer scouts (which is co-ed, 14-21 years old, part of BSA), you arent allowed to have sex with each other...
> 
> This is not saying "ok, lets have gay sex at Philmont [scout ranch]", it's saying that you don't have to pretend not to be gay every thursday night. At least, we had our meetings on thursdays.


I think a DADT approach would've been best

----------


## Matt Collins

> As a Scout leader myself, I find it odd that they found 61% in favor considering the major conservative evangelicals and Mormons make up a bulk of charters. Regardless of your views on homosexuality, this was about the most asinine way to handle this policy. Essentially they're forcing religious organizations to be at risk (including forcing acceptance of homosexuality on them) and they're pretending that gay Scouts magically stop being gay when they turn 18. I've never seen such an impractical and inconsiderate (to both sides) policy put into place in a private organization. 
> 
> Their desire for inclusivity and progressiveness has created a mess for the Troop leaders. How can we teach our boys that a Scout is brave with the lot of these cowards?


Yeah, the BSA is going to have serious fallout from this. Churches, where most BSA troops meet, are going to start kicking them out over this, and rightfully so. Therefore many BSA troops will be corralled into using government facilities to meet, town halls, court houses, government schools, etc....

----------


## jonhowe

> I think a DADT approach would've been best


If Scouting existed in a vacuum, maybe you're right. But these kids typically know each other outside of scouting (IE, from school and such). If a young man 'comes out' in one setting, he's out, and would be expelled from scouting, even if he didn't discuss it in a scouting context.

And AF, again, this does not change anything as far as "smoking dick", as you put it so eloquently. If the BSA voted to allow sex on campouts, I would not let my children join, gay OR straight.

But again, that doesn't matter; not part of the narrative.

----------


## tod evans

My son will not be participating.

----------


## V3n

> Uhhh I don't think they do... Please cite your sources


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164547,00.html




> On the federal level, the Pentagon provided an estimated $6 to $8 million from 1997 to 2001 to assist a Boy Scouts Jamboree -- an event which is traditionally held on military bases.
> 
> Linda Hills of the ACLU aptly states, "The Boy Scouts can't have it both ways…If they truly are a private religious organization, free to engage in any form of discrimination they choose, then they are not entitled to a government subsidy."
> 
> On June 22, U.S. District Judge Blanche Manning (Illinois) agreed. She ruled against continuing the Jamboree's subsidy and, so, refused BSA continued access both to military bases and assistance such as transportation.
> 
> On July 26, in a counter-move, the Senate unanimously voted for military bases to continue hosting Boy Scouts events. (The relevant provision was part of S.1042, which will set Defense Department policy for 2006.)

----------


## V3n

> Maybe because BSA got pressured into doing this because other people were not willing to put up with the idea that they could exclude gay boys if they wanted to.


Don't we on this site argue this is the proper way to make change?  The answer to the Civil Rights Movement?  To boycott and pressure establishments and organizations that don't accept African-Americans (peacefully) until they either accept them or go bankrupt?

They got pressured, and they've changed without enacting a new Federal Law.  This _is_ the free market working itself out.

----------


## tod evans

> This _is_ the free market working itself out.


Let's see in 10 years how well this works out...

----------


## moostraks

> that's the NYTimes disinformation, an anti scouting source if there ever was one.


Meh...think it depends on the particular group but ours was definitely recruiting for the military. I wanted my eldest boy to learn survival skills not prep for an army career so we quit. It was at the local public school before and slightly after 9/11.

----------


## moostraks

> Agressive war on boyhood is aggresive.
> 
> I can't say for sure, but my guess is that any boy walking around with or going into school with a slingshot would be arrested.


Not at my school!

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Don't we on this site argue this is the proper way to make change?  The answer to the Civil Rights Movement?  To boycott and pressure establishments and organizations that don't accept African-Americans (peacefully) until they either accept them or go bankrupt?
> 
> They got pressured, and they've changed without enacting a new Federal Law.  This _is_ the free market working itself out.


Lawsuits and legal threats, and bogus comparisons to the civil rights movement, are certainly not examples proper voluntary change, but change under bullied duress and constructive fraud. Most of the changes relating to racial tensions are the result of education over a generation, not torts, or state coercion. 

The extermination of an organization's free exercise of the right to association or disassociation is _not_ an advance for liberty. Or perhaps, maybe you might want to be sued for 20 years straight until you reverse your position on a topic, and call that reversal a voluntary, free exercise of your speech rights?

----------


## fisharmor

Well, as an Eagle scout (i.e., one who has been through the experience  to the end), let me tell you that morally upstanding church-going people  should have gotten pissed at that organization a long time ago.

At  the beginning of every meeting we were compelled to stand, genuflect to  a piece of cloth, and recite a prayer to the United States, otherwise  known as "the pledge".
At the end of every weekly meeting we were compelled to recite a prayer to the "great master of all scouts".
On  at least one occasion I was given communion.  By whom, I cannot say.  I  was much too young and uninformed to make a judgment call as to whether  or not I should have taken it.

Am I glad I can tie a knot, set  up a tent, start and cook on a fire, organize a blood drive, hold 5-10  people together as a working unit, carry a 50lb pack through the  mountains, administer first aid, pull someone in from a lake, evaluate  the relative safety of a situation, and paddle a canoe?  Yes,  absolutely.
I just wish that magnificent meal wasn't so obviously smeared with state-worshipping $#@!.

So pardon me if I don't get too worked up about them allowing homosexuals to eat there now.

----------


## V3n

> The extermination of an organization's free exercise of the right to association or disassociation is _not_ an advance for liberty. Or perhaps, maybe you might want to be sued for 20 years straight until you reverse your position on a topic, and call that reversal a voluntary, free exercise of your speech rights?


They voluntarily exercised their free right to take a vote and it passed.

Maybe we should take up suing the government to get our Rights back for the next 20 years straight, if that's what works.

----------


## TonySutton

> This.
> 
> Next we will have a big celebration when groups make it part of their charter to accept furies.
> 
> Look I don't really give a $#@! if people are gay.  I don't care if you're a furry or have a foot fetish, or like to take a dump on someone's chest.  It's just $#@!ing annoying when we're supposed to celebrate how awesome this is or how it's bigoted to not believe this is 100% normal.... here's a clue - it isn't.


Lol, you really have no idea what a furry is do you :P

Furries are fans of anthropomorphic art in all of it's forms.  It is not a fetish, hahaha.  Keep watching MTV :P

----------


## Matthew5

> Well, as an Eagle scout (i.e., one who has been through the experience  to the end), let me tell you that morally upstanding church-going people  should have gotten pissed at that organization a long time ago.
> 
> At  the beginning of every meeting we were compelled to stand, genuflect to  a piece of cloth, and recite a prayer to the United States, otherwise  known as "the pledge".
> At the end of every weekly meeting we were compelled to recite a prayer to the "great master of all scouts".
> On  at least one occasion I was given communion.  By whom, I cannot say.  I  was much too young and uninformed to make a judgment call as to whether  or not I should have taken it.
> 
> Am I glad I can tie a knot, set  up a tent, start and cook on a fire, organize a blood drive, hold 5-10  people together as a working unit, carry a 50lb pack through the  mountains, administer first aid, pull someone in from a lake, evaluate  the relative safety of a situation, and paddle a canoe?  Yes,  absolutely.
> I just wish that magnificent meal wasn't so obviously smeared with state-worshipping $#@!.
> 
> So pardon me if I don't get too worked up about them allowing homosexuals to eat there now.


I remain silent when the pledge is recited, so far no one has noticed. For an international organization, it sure is nationalists. _This_ is my one big problem with Scouting, the state worship involved. Country is not equal to God.

----------


## Carlybee

Well there have always been gays in the scouts...most of them just never came out. Bottom line is you have the choice to not join if you find the organization offensive. There are other outfits that teach self reliance etc.

----------


## Matthew5

> Well there have always been gays in the scouts...most of them just never came out. Bottom line is you have the choice to not join if you find the organization offensive. There are other outfits that teach self reliance etc.


Indeed, but the organization has been around for 100 years and some families have three generations of Scouting. One must understand how this could be difficult for some. I was never a Scout myself and only joined as an adult leader. Yet in my five years, I've met alot of people with deep ties to the organization. I don't think we can have a flippant attitude about this decision.

----------


## BenIsForRon

So many regressive, homophobic people in this forum.

Gay scouts are not going to turn you kids gay. They've always been there, always will, now they just get to be honest about who they are.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> They voluntarily exercised their free right to take a vote and it passed.
> 
> Maybe we should take up suing the government to get our Rights back for the next 20 years straight, if that's what works.


"Voluntary" as a result of litigative extortion, yes. Perhaps we should all initiate force to get what we want, if that's what works.

----------


## nobody's_hero

I don't understand why they can't just join the girl scouts.

----------


## Matthew5

> So many regressive, homophobic people in this forum.
> 
> Gay scouts are not going to turn you kids gay. They've always been there, always will, now they just get to be honest about who they are.


Of course, everyone who disagrees that homosexuality is normal is a homophobe. Keep advancing the agenda. 

Who said they feared gay scouts were going to turn kids gay? 

The DADT nature of Scouting as it was before struck a homeostasis that balanced well with the religious organizations that make up the bulk of Scouting. This adds a whole new layer of difficulty to not only Scout leaders, but the organizations and churches that charter them.

----------


## Ranger29860

> Of course, everyone who disagrees that homosexuality is normal is a homophobe. Keep advancing the agenda. 
> 
> Who said they feared gay scouts were going to turn kids gay? 
> 
> The DADT nature of Scouting as it was before struck a homeostasis that balanced well with the religious organizations that make up the bulk of Scouting. This adds a whole new layer of difficulty to not only Scout leaders, but the organizations and churches that charter them.



Quite a few people have said it in this topic. Not to mention the repeated claim by some in here that homosexuals are the same as pedophiles. I would assume that is who he is referring to not those who simply disagree with the lifestyle.

----------


## Carlybee

> Indeed, but the organization has been around for 100 years and some families have three generations of Scouting. One must understand how this could be difficult for some. I was never a Scout myself and only joined as an adult leader. Yet in my five years, I've met alot of people with deep ties to the organization. I don't think we can have a flippant attitude about this decision.



Sorry gays are humans too but homophobia is alive and well. As a libertarian it's hard for me to fathom how some can think gays still should have no rights or should be included but don't ask don't tell.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Sorry gays are humans too but homophobia is alive and well. As a libertarian it's hard for me to fathom how some can think gays still should have no rights or should be included but don't ask don't tell.


Because it's a private organization that teaches that being gay is immoral.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Gay scouts are not going to turn you kids gay. They've always been there, always will, now they just get to be honest about who they are.


That's not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is the BSA is now saying that it's ok to be living an immoral lifestyle, openly. That undermines the organization's moral foundation.

----------


## Carlybee

> Because it's a private organization that teaches that being gay is immoral.


Yet has repeatedly allowed pedophiles in as scout leaders with no background checks.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Meh...think it depends on the particular group but ours was definitely recruiting for the military. I wanted my eldest boy to learn survival skills not prep for an army career so we quit. It was at the local public school before and slightly after 9/11.


I think it depends on the troop. Some troops, especially those close to military bases, tend to have more of that type of feel, whereas others may not. The national BSA as a whole is NOT a military recruiting organization.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Yet has repeatedly allowed pedophiles in as scout leaders with no background checks.


I think that has changed. But again, I don't know what that has to do with being an openly gay Scout?

----------


## Carlybee

> I think that has changed. But again, I don't know what that has to do with being an openly gay Scout?


It has to do with their moral imperative. Also just because one is gay does not necessarily assume one is sexually active. If that is their concern about children then shouldn't their moral edict also disapprove of heterosexuals possibly engaging in premarital sex. Whole thing is dumb to me.

----------


## donnay

> Sorry gays are humans too but homophobia is alive and well. As a libertarian it's hard for me to fathom how some can think gays still should have no rights or should be included but don't ask don't tell.



They have the same rights as everyone else.  They just do not have a right to impose their life-styles on others.  By announcing they have a right to be in the boy's scouts is in fact imposing their life-styles on others.  The also have the right to organize and get their own organization too.  Why bother making it a point to impose their life styles on others?  It's no different than some Fundamental Christians forcing their life-styles on everyone too.  Of which I am against too.

----------


## tod evans

> It's no different than some Fundamental Christians forcing their life-styles on everyone too.  Of which I am against too.


Ya mean Pentecostals wouldn't be very welcome in the Catholic church?

Whoda thunk...

----------


## Carlybee

I agree a private organization should not be forced to change their bylaws, but given that gays are going to join anyway...whether or not they even know they are gay yet...their rules still reinforce old stereotypes. Personally I wouldn't allow my child to join because their rules are apparently elitist and out of touch with reality. Reminds me of country clubs that allowed only whites.

----------


## Matt Collins

> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164547,00.html


That's an accounting trick. And it's not really giving them money, it's letting them use their facilities.

----------


## Matt Collins

> shouldn't their moral edict also disapprove of heterosexuals possibly engaging in premarital sex.


They do

----------


## donnay

> I agree a private organization should not be forced to change their bylaws, but given that gays are going to join anyway...whether or not they even know they are gay yet...their rules still reinforce old stereotypes. Personally I wouldn't allow my child to join because their rules are apparently elitist and out of touch with reality. Reminds me of country clubs that allowed only whites.


I am personally not happy with the BSA as it stands now.  They are just training boys to become good little soldiers for unconstitutional wars.

----------


## V3n

> That's an accounting trick. And it's not really giving them money, it's letting them use their facilities.





> It looks like it is still under debate whether they are a public organization or a private one.  They like to say they're private, but they accept tax *perks* and other fiduciary *perks* from State and Federal government - accepting one red cent from the Feds means they are not private in my book.


I admit it's debatable.  and I called it perks, not exactly accepting cash, but not a whole lot different.

----------


## Matt Collins

> If Scouting existed in a vacuum, maybe you're right. But these kids typically know each other outside of scouting (IE, from school and such). If a young man 'comes out' in one setting, he's out, and would be expelled from scouting, even if he didn't discuss it in a scouting context.


There is nothing wrong with that. If an organization wants to set standards for how it's members must behave, then it has a right to do so.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I am personally not happy with the BSA as it stands now.  They are just training boys to become good little soldiers for unconstitutional wars.


Actually no they are not

----------


## Anti Federalist

> And AF, again, this does not change anything as far as "smoking dick", as you put it so eloquently. If the BSA voted to allow sex on campouts, I would not let my children join, gay OR straight.


Not very delicate, huh?

You're missing the point of that comment, I think.

The "right" to join BSA as an open homosexual, even if it is an apparent contradiction in their their governing code, the "privacy" to have an abortion, becomes utterly meaningless when you are under surveillance 24/7 and can be picked up for execution under NDAA with no due process.

We fight over this, really pointless, battle in the "culture war", while real, *kill your ass dead*, tyranny is being erected all around us.

So, excuse me for being crude, but the time for gentle talk and mild persuasion is long, long past.

----------


## TonySutton

It is almost funny to watch some members tip toe around land mines in this discussion.  Especially since there are historical threads concerning this very topic and the BSA voting in the negative on the same topic.  Quite interesting how some posters comments don't seem to follow the same train of thought 1 year later...

----------


## TruckinMike

Christians/Jews



> The first Boy Scouts of America Handbook for Boys, published in August 1911, declares that "... no boy can grow into the best kind of citizenship without recognizing his obligation to God." (Page 215)
> 
> The latest edition of The Official Boy Scout Handbook, published in 1979 reads: "'A Scout is reverent toward.' All Scouts show this by being faithful in their duty to God." (Page 484.)





> Leviticus 18:22
> "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." (NLT)
> 
> Leviticus 20:13
> "If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." (NLT)



So could someone please tell me why a homosexual would want to join the BSA? ---->No need to answer, we know why. And it ain't about tying knots and starting fires with sticks. Its all about political agendas --> forced/conditioned acceptance of homosexuality in every facet of our society -- end of story.

----------


## Ender

> So could someone please tell me why a homosexual would want to join the BSA? ---->No need to answer, we know why. And it ain't about tying knots and starting fires with sticks. Its all about political agendas --> forced/conditioned acceptance of homosexuality in every facet of our society -- end of story.


So, you think a 11-14 year old is all about political agendas?

Maybe it's a kid that wants to learn something? Maybe its a kid that wants to be a part of something? Maybe its a confused kid that is suicidal and needs friends?

But, no, ***** never want to do any of that!

Got news for you- a young confused kid is not evil and they need to be surrounded by loving, caring people. You know- Jesus' second commandment?

----------


## donnay

> Actually no they are not


So says you.  



"On my honor I will do my best
 to do my duty to God and my country..."


The concept of Scouting Salutes the Military is unique, simple and powerful: Honor one active duty enlisted person who personifies the values found in the Scout Oath and Law to represent each of the five U.S. military branches - Army,  Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard - during a special evening event that brings together the national community in support of Scouting’s impact on today’s youth and the tremendous service - on and off the battlefield -  rendered by the men and women of our armed services.

http://www.boyscouts-ncac.org/scouti...military/41601

----------


## Ender

> That's not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is the BSA is now saying that it's ok to be living an immoral lifestyle, openly. That undermines the organization's moral foundation.


That's BS.

Being homosexual is not a choice; I do not know one gay person who "decided" to become gay. I also know a lot who are celibate because of their religious beliefs.

----------


## donnay

> That's BS.
> 
> Being homosexual is not a choice; I do not know one gay person who "decided" to become gay. I also know a lot who are celibate because of their religious beliefs.


From my research they should check into Bisphenol-A (BPA) and consuming Soy for the reason why they have been emasculated.

----------


## cjm

What the BSA has done here is what many of us want done with the gay marriage issue.  If the Catholic Church doesn't want to marry gays, they should not be forced to, right?  And if some other Church wants to marry gays, they should be allowed to, right?  By removing the restriction at the national organization level, the question is left to the local units to decide for themselves:

http://www.scouting.org/MembershipPolicy.aspx




> MEDIA STATEMENT 
> 
> Boy Scouts of America 
> Monday, Jan. 28, 2013
> Attributable to: Deron Smith, Director of Public Relations 
> 
> For more than 100 years, Scoutings focus has been on working together to deliver the nations foremost youth program of character development and values-based leadership training. Scouting has always been in an ongoing dialogue with the Scouting family to determine what is in the best interest of the organization and the young people we serve.  
> 
> Currently, the BSA is discussing potentially removing the national membership restriction regarding sexual orientation. This would mean there would no longer be any national policy regarding sexual orientation, and the chartered organizations that oversee and deliver Scouting would accept membership and select leaders consistent with each organizations mission, principles, or religious beliefs. BSA members and parents would be able to choose a local unit that best meets the needs of their families.  
> ...

----------


## IndianaPolitico

Some food for thought, some of the big money that is at the head of the BSA.

Former members of the NEB include former presidential nominee Mitt Romney, and former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
2011 National Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America
Jon E. Barfield
David L. Beck
Donald D. Belcher
R. Thomas Buffenbarger
B. Howard Bulloch
Richard L. Burdick
Anderson W. Chandler
Dennis H. Chookaszian
Keith A. Clark
D. Kent Clayburn
Ronald O. Coleman
Philip M. Condit
William F. “Rick” Cronk
John C. Cushman III
R. Michael Daniel
Ralph de la Vega
Douglas H. Dittrick
John R. Donnell Jr.
Terrence P. Dunn (VP)
L. B. Eckelkamp Jr.
George F. Francis III
Jack D. Furst (VP)
T. Michael Goodrich
John Gottschalk
Earl G. Graves
Stephen G. Hanks
Michael D. Harris, Esq.
J. Brett Harvey
Aubrey B. Harwell Jr.
Stephen Hemsley
Larry W. Kellner
Stephen B. King (Regional President)
Lyle R. Knight (VP)
Robert J. LaFortune
Joseph P. Landy
Mark P. Mays
Robert J. Mazzuca
Francis R. McAllister
Drayton McLane Jr. (VP)
Ronald K. Migita
Douglas B. Mitchell
Thomas S. Monson
José F. Niño
Scott D. Oki
Francis H. Olmstead Jr.
Arthur F. Oppenheimer (Regional President)
Bruce D. Parker (VP)
Aubrey B. Patterson
Tico A. Perez (National Commissioner)
Wayne M. Perry (National President)
Christian H. Poindexter
Frank Ramirez
Robert H. Reynolds
Roy S. Roberts
Steven R. Rogel
James D. Rogers
Matthew K. Rose (VP)
Henry A. Rosenberg Jr. (VP)
Nathan O. Rosenberg (VP)
Roger M. Schrimp
O. Temple Sloan Jr. (VP)
Marshall M. Sloane
Charles H. Smith
John F. Smith
Robert J. Smith (regional president)
Roland Smith
Randall L. Stephenson (VP)
Rex W. Tillerson
C. Travis Traylor Jr.
James S. Turley (International Commissioner)
Gerald J. Voros
David M. Weekley (Regional President)
Steven E. Weekes
Gary E. Wendlandt
Togo D. West, Jr.
James S. Wilson
R. Ray Wood

If I recall correctly, the original proposition before national was wether to ALLOW local troops to make up their own mind on the issue, it appears that isn't what ended up passing. I have nothing against money and corporations but it is apparent that the national leadership of the BSA was influenced by that, and not necessarily by rank and file scouts and volunteers.

----------


## Root

> I don't understand why they can't just join the girl scouts.


You may be on to something.  Maybe both organizations should rethink their approach.

I _like_ Girls' Scouts
I _like_ Boys' Scouts

----------


## cjm

> ...
> 
> If I recall correctly, the original proposition before national was wether to ALLOW local troops to make up their own mind on the issue, it appears that isn't what ended up passing. I have nothing against money and corporations but it is apparent that the national leadership of the BSA was influenced by that, and not necessarily by rank and file scouts and volunteers.


Do you have a link with the exact language that they voted on?  I'd be really surprised if it actually says that all units have to accept gays.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Quite a few people have said it in this topic. Not to mention the repeated claim by some in here that homosexuals are the same as pedophiles. I would assume that is who he is referring to not those who simply disagree with the lifestyle.


The actual claim is that homosexuals have a *disproportionate number of pedophiles* in their population, compared to heterosexuals. And the claim is accurate. It's also true that pedophile advocates often use the same exact line of argument to defend the behavior as do gay advocates (that it's not a choice, they were born that way, society is oppressing them, etc), to position themselves as victims.

----------


## IndianaPolitico

> Do you have a link with the exact language that they voted on?  I'd be really surprised if it actually says that all units have to accept gays.


http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/con...esolution.aspx
Youth membership in the Boy Scouts of America is open to all youth who meet the specific membership requirements to join the Cub Scout, Boy Scout, Varsity Scout, Sea Scout, and Venturing programs. Membership in any program of the Boy Scouts of America requires the youth member to (a) subscribe to and abide by the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law, (b) subscribe to and abide by the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle (duty to God), and (c) demonstrate behavior that exemplifies the highest level of good conduct and respect for others and is consistent at all times with the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law. No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.

The statement itself could be seen as contradicting itself by some, in regards to the Declaration of Religious Principle, and Scout Oath. (Morally Straight) This could result in lawsuits against individual scout troops, mainly those chartered to churches.

----------


## jmdrake

> It has to do with their moral imperative. Also just because one is gay does not necessarily assume one is sexually active. If that is their concern about children then shouldn't their moral edict also disapprove of heterosexuals possibly engaging in premarital sex. Whole thing is dumb to me.


So let me see if I understand you correctly.  If the BSA has or had taken a stand against shacking then you're okay with them taking a stand against openly gay Scout Masters?  The reason I ask is because while I've never been a Scout, the youth camping organization that I belonged to did have such a policy.  Actually it was a policy that leaders should be church members in good and regular standing.  Those who were openly gay or openly engaged in fornication or openly engaging in a host of other activities that went against the church moral code wouldn't be deemed fit to lead.  And yes, like most churches, people who were willing to seek God's help and grace for whatever their issue were extended grace.  To be honest, the issue never came up.  The closest to that was a parent who's volunteer services had to be terminated because he came up negative on a background check.  I don't know what the problem was.  I do know he was a good man at that point.  This could have easily been one of those 18 y/o with a 16 y/o girlfriend cases.

----------


## Carlybee

> They do



Yet they allow heterosexuals who could possibly at some time engage in pre-marital sex into their organization.

----------


## jmdrake

> That's BS.
> 
> Being homosexual is not a choice; I do not know one gay person who "decided" to become gay. I also know a lot who are celibate because of their religious beliefs.


http://www.*****bychoice.com

And I personally know people currently in gay or lesbian relationships who went way into adulthood and had kids before adopted that lifestyle.  These weren't cases of "I always like the same sex" or "I grew up liking both."  It happens despite all of the propaganda claiming that it doesn't.

----------


## Carlybee

> So let me see if I understand you correctly.  If the BSA has or had taken a stand against shacking then you're okay with them taking a stand against openly gay Scout Masters?  The reason I ask is because while I've never been a Scout, the youth camping organization that I belonged to did have such a policy.  Actually it was a policy that leaders should be church members in good and regular standing.  Those who were openly gay or openly engaged in fornication or openly engaging in a host of other activities that went against the church moral code wouldn't be deemed fit to lead.  And yes, like most churches, people who were willing to seek God's help and grace for whatever their issue were extended grace.  To be honest, the issue never came up.  The closest to that was a parent who's volunteer services had to be terminated because he came up negative on a background check.  I don't know what the problem was.  I do know he was a good man at that point.  This could have easily been one of those 18 y/o with a 16 y/o girlfriend cases.


My only experience with the scouts was when my son was in cubscouts they were begging for people to be den leaders and I don't recall any prerequisites.

----------


## Carlybee

> http://www.*****bychoice.com
> 
> And I personally know people currently in gay or lesbian relationships who went way into adulthood and had kids before adopted that lifestyle.  These weren't cases of "I always like the same sex" or "I grew up liking both."  It happens despite all of the propaganda claiming that it doesn't.


And a lot of people suppress their inclinations in order to fit in and then later as it becomes more acceptable feel comfortable embracing their true feelings. That happens a lot too.

----------


## cjm

> http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/con...esolution.aspx
> Youth membership in the Boy Scouts of America is open to all youth who meet the specific membership requirements to join the Cub Scout, Boy Scout, Varsity Scout, Sea Scout, and Venturing programs. Membership in any program of the Boy Scouts of America requires the youth member to (a) subscribe to and abide by the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law, (b) subscribe to and abide by the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle (duty to God), and (c) demonstrate behavior that exemplifies the highest level of good conduct and respect for others and is consistent at all times with the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law. No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.
> 
> The statement itself could be seen as contradicting itself by some, in regards to the Declaration of Religious Principle, and Scout Oath. (Morally Straight) This could result in lawsuits against individual scout troops, mainly those chartered to churches.


Thanks for the link.

----------


## jmdrake

> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164547,00.html





> That's an accounting trick. And it's not really giving them money, it's letting them use their facilities.


The link V3n posted is really an argument for getting rid of taxes and discretionary and entitlement spending more than anything.  Think of all of the churches and church related organizations that get federal funds in some form of fashion through "faith based initiatives."  If a church school gets title one funds or school vouchers, must it now hire atheist teachers?

----------


## Ranger29860

> From my research they should check into Bisphenol-A (BPA) and consuming Soy for the reason why they have been emasculated.


So the only gay men around are emasculated? Estrogen doesn't make you want to have gay sex. Let me pump you full of it and we will see if you all of a sudden start running around with glitter and rainbows spurting from you ass.

----------


## jmdrake

> And a lot of people suppress their inclinations in order to fit in and then later as it becomes more acceptable feel comfortable embracing their true feelings. That happens a lot too.


The particular people I'm thinking about don't fit in that category.  I know them well enough and talked to them enough about their sexual history to know that.  I know it's hard to fathom because of all of the propaganda, but there are really people who, without any predisposition to being gay as a child, experimented later, found out they liked it, and kept doing it.  Sexuality isn't as fixed as the media would have you believe.

----------


## Ranger29860

> The actual claim is that homosexuals have a *disproportionate number of pedophiles* in their population, compared to heterosexuals. And the claim is accurate. It's also true that pedophile advocates often use the same exact line of argument to defend the behavior as do gay advocates (that it's not a choice, they were born that way, society is oppressing them, etc), to position themselves as victims.



A homosexual who has sex with a consenting  adult is not the same as a person who has sex with a non consenting child.

----------


## jmdrake

> My only experience with the scouts was when my son was in cubscouts they were begging for people to be den leaders and I don't recall any prerequisites.


Again, I have no experience with scouting per se, but I doubt there were actually no prerequisites.  They might not have been talked about or enforced.  And with all volunteer organizations there's usually a dearth of volunteers especially for positions that require a lot of work, special skill, and don't any particular glory.  Den leader sounds a lot like such a position.

----------


## Spikender

> So the only gay men around are emasculated? Estrogen doesn't make you want to have gay sex. Let me pump you full of it and we will see if you all of a sudden start running around with glitter and rainbows spurting from you ass.


Yo...

Rainbows and glitter are manly as buck.

Don't go dissing them like that.

On the subject of the topic itself... I really have no comment, because I just don't care that much.

----------


## cjm

> Again, I have no experience with scouting per se, but I doubt there were actually no prerequisites.  They might not have been talked about or enforced.  And with all volunteer organizations there's usually a dearth of volunteers especially for positions that require a lot of work, special skill, and don't any particular glory.  Den leader sounds a lot like such a position.


The requirements are on the application: http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/524-501.pdf




> Leadership Requirements
> The applicant must possess the moral, educational, and emotional qualities that the Boy Scouts of
> America deems necessary to afford positive leadership to youth. The applicant must also be the correct
> age, subscribe to the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle, and abide by the Scout Oath or
> Promise, and the Scout Law

----------


## jmdrake

> The actual claim is that homosexuals have a *disproportionate number of pedophiles* in their population, compared to heterosexuals. And the claim is accurate. It's also true that pedophile advocates often use the same exact line of argument to defend the behavior as do gay advocates (that it's not a choice, they were born that way, society is oppressing them, etc), to position themselves as victims.





> A homosexual who has sex with a consenting  adult is not the same as a person who has sex with a non consenting child.


Peace&Freedom didn't say they were the same.  He said that there was a disproportionate number of pedophiles in the gay community.  Is that true?  I don't know.  There are certainly heterosexuals that are pedophiles and homosexuals that are pedophiles.  We aren't talking about mutual exclusive groups here.  It's certainly true that NAMBLA was once welcome in gay pride parades until that became too much of a problem politically.

----------


## Ranger29860

> The particular people I'm thinking about don't fit in that category.  I know them well enough and talked to them enough about their sexual history to know that.  I know it's hard to fathom because of all of the propaganda, but there are really people who, without any predisposition to being gay as a child, experimented later, found out they liked it, and kept doing it.  Sexuality isn't as fixed as the media would have you believe.


You cant take some one who is 100% straight or gay and force them to become gay or straight (very few people are 100% either way). Now your right sexuality is a sliding scale and your friend may not have been attracted strongly to a gay relationship but found out that he likes it later in life. It does not mean he would be the same as a person who never thought about it, and if they did ever try it puked and couldn't get "ready" (there are those out there on each side).

----------


## jmdrake

> You cant take some one who is 100% straight or gay and force them to become gay or straight (very few people are 100% either way). Now your right sexuality is a sliding scale and your friend may not have been attracted strongly to a gay relationship but found out that he likes it later in life. It does not mean he would be the same as a person who never thought about it, and if they did ever try it puked and couldn't get "ready" (there are those out there on each side).


That's unscientific circular reasoning.  If someone who thinks they are 100% straight or gay goes the other way, you'll just say "Well they weren't really 100% straight or gay".  That's BS.

----------


## Matt Collins

> "On my honor I will do my best
>  to do my duty to God and my country..."


That doesn't mean military service. 






> The concept of Scouting Salutes the Military is unique, simple and powerful: Honor one active duty enlisted person who personifies the values found in the Scout Oath and Law to represent each of the five U.S. military branches - Army,  Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard - during a special evening event that brings together the national community in support of Scoutings impact on todays youth and the tremendous service - on and off the battlefield -  rendered by the men and women of our armed services.
> 
> http://www.boyscouts-ncac.org/scouti...military/41601


That's not the national organization, that's the DC area Council. Of course they are going to be more nationalistic, they are based in DC, and it's likely that most people there touch the military in one way or another.  The BSA is not monolithic

----------


## Ranger29860

> Peace&Freedom didn't say they were the same.  He said that there was a disproportionate number of pedophiles in the gay community.  Is that true?  I don't know.  There are certainly heterosexuals that are pedophiles and homosexuals that are pedophiles.  We aren't talking about mutual exclusive groups here.  It's certainly true that NAMBLA was once welcome in gay pride parades until that became too much of a problem politically.


I cant find any evidence supporting his claim. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7345149

http://www.parentsformeganslaw.org/p...xualAbuse.html

That being said it would be pretty easy for a study to lump pedophiles who molest the same sex child into the homosexual pile. Since people tend to associate the sex (gender) part of the child as some importance when its really about the age of the child and not the sex.

----------


## Matthew5

> What the BSA has done here is what many of us want done with the gay marriage issue.  If the Catholic Church doesn't want to marry gays, they should not be forced to, right?  And if some other Church wants to marry gays, they should be allowed to, right?  By removing the restriction at the national organization level, the question is left to the local units to decide for themselves:
> 
> http://www.scouting.org/MembershipPolicy.aspx


That statement is old, unfortunately. The resolution, as voted, states: "_No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone."_ 6 months are given for all scout units to adjust to this new policy. It's being forced on all units.

----------


## Root

> "On my honor I will do my best
>  to do my duty to God and my country..."


My country is not the same as my government.  At least I never thought so when I was in scouts.

----------


## Ranger29860

> That's unscientific circular reasoning.  If someone who thinks they are 100% straight or gay goes the other way, you'll just say "Well they weren't really 100% straight or gay".  That's BS.


Let me reword it then, if a person who is so admittedly opposed to having a gay or straight relationship that they get physically ill at the thought and do not not even get even the tiniest bit excited then they would in my mind be 100% straight or gay. There are plenty of people like that in the world. But most of us are not that, its not a matter of trying to say one person cant be straight at one point since they had gay sex later in life its about saying that very little of us are necessarily straight or gay. I say screw the labels and let people be people, but hey labels and groups divide us so we gotta keep them.

----------


## Ender

> http://www.*****bychoice.com
> 
> And I personally know people currently in gay or lesbian relationships who went way into adulthood and had kids before adopted that lifestyle.  These weren't cases of "I always like the same sex" or "I grew up liking both."  It happens despite all of the propaganda claiming that it doesn't.


Well, of course.

I know gays who have covered up their "gayness" all of their lives, have wives, children and are happy in their uncomfortableness and the life they have chosen.

My grandfather has told some outrageous stories of the navy men he served with that had sex with anything that moved when there were no women around- so what does that prove?

Man is a sexual being; some will have sex with anyone and everyone. Some are strictly straight and some strictly gay. I have known all of these kinds and the ones who suffer the most are the gays who feel they were born this way.

----------


## jmdrake

> Let me reword it then, if a person who is so admittedly opposed to having a gay or straight relationship that they get physically ill at the thought and do not not even get even the tiniest bit excited then they would in my mind be 100% straight or gay. There are plenty of people like that in the world. But most of us are not that, its not a matter of trying to say one person cant be straight at one point since they had gay sex later in life its about saying that very little of us are necessarily straight or gay. I say screw the labels and let people be people, but hey labels and groups divide us so we gotta keep them.


And there are people who have in the past gotten physically ill at the thought of gay sex and have changed their mind over time for various reasons.  One infamous example if you are into porn as I used to be is the black female adult film star Janet Jacme who after years of saying she'd never do a girl/girl scene because she thought it was "gross" finally gave into it and did some.  (Yes, I'm somewhat ashamed to know all those details, but alas my past is my past.)  Yes she was "doing it for the money" but my point is once she got passed the initial "line in the sand" she kept doing those scenes even though she was still making money doing her bread and butter hetero scenes.  And again, you really don't have any scientific basis to your position.  It could be right.  It could be wrong.  Based on what I know about the plasticity of the human brain I'm certain that it's wrong.  But it gets pushed as "truth" because of political correctness.  It's kind of like the whole manmade global warming thing, although I would say that has more science behind it then the position you are espousing.

----------


## Antischism

> And there are people who have in the past gotten physically ill at the thought of gay sex and have changed their mind over time for various reasons.  One infamous example if you are into porn as I used to be is the black female adult film star Janet Jacme who after years of saying she'd never do a girl/girl scene because she thought it was "gross" finally gave into it and did some.  (Yes, I'm somewhat ashamed to know all those details, but alas my past is my past.)  Yes she was "doing it for the money" but my point is once she got passed the initial "line in the sand" she kept doing those scenes even though she was still making money doing her bread and butter hetero scenes.  And again, you really don't have any scientific basis to your position.  It could be right.  It could be wrong.  Based on what I know about the plasticity of the human brain I'm certain that it's wrong.  But it gets pushed as "truth" because of political correctness.  It's kind of like the whole manmade global warming thing, although I would say that has more science behind it then the position you are espousing.


That seems like an outlier, not the rule.

----------


## Ranger29860

> And there are people who have in the past gotten physically ill at the thought of gay sex and have changed their mind over time for various reasons.  One infamous example if you are into porn as I used to be is the black female adult film star Janet Jacme who after years of saying she'd never do a girl/girl scene because she thought it was "gross" finally gave into it and did some.  (Yes, I'm somewhat ashamed to know all those details, but alas my past is my past.)  Yes she was "doing it for the money" but my point is once she got passed the initial "line in the sand" she kept doing those scenes even though she was still making money doing her bread and butter hetero scenes.  And again, you really don't have any scientific basis to your position.  It could be right.  It could be wrong.  Based on what I know about the plasticity of the human brain I'm certain that it's wrong.  But it gets pushed as "truth" because of political correctness.  It's kind of like the whole manmade global warming thing, although I would say that has more science behind it then the position you are espousing.


http://www.iub.edu/~kinsey/research/ak-hhscale.html

Good place to start with an exuberant amount of references to other scientific work that discuss the non rigid sexual orientation of human beings (as in very little are 100% either way).

----------


## jmdrake

> Well, of course.
> 
> I know gays who have covered up their "gayness" all of their lives, have wives, children and are happy in their uncomfortableness and the life they have chosen.
> 
> My grandfather has told some outrageous stories of the navy men he served with that had sex with anything that moved when there were no women around- so what does that prove?
> 
> Man is a sexual being; some will have sex with anyone and everyone. Some are strictly straight and some strictly gay. I have known all of these kinds and the ones who suffer the most are the gays who feel they were born this way.


It *disproves* this.




> That's BS.
> 
> Being homosexual is not a choice; I do not know one gay person who "decided" to become gay. I also know a lot who are celibate because of their religious beliefs.


Your blanket statement that "being homosexual is not a choice" is not true.  It *might* not be a choice for *some* but then again it's hard to ascertain the social environmental factors involved.  And yes, men are a sexual being.  And yes, in situations where men are deprived of women, some make the *choice* to engage in homosexuality, even though they had no previous inclinations.  That actually further proves my point.  Sexuality isn't fixed and these hard fast "rules" that people claim are true aren't necessarily true.

----------


## Ender

> It *disproves* this.
> 
> 
> 
> Your blanket statement that "being homosexual is not a choice" is not true.  It *might* not be a choice for *some* but then again it's hard to ascertain the social environmental factors involved.  And yes, men are a sexual being.  And yes, in situations where men are deprived of women, some make the *choice* to engage in homosexuality, even though they had no previous inclinations.  That actually further proves my point.  Sexuality isn't fixed and these hard fast "rules" that people claim are true aren't necessarily true.


Stretching things a bit to uphold your personal dislikes?

True homosexuality is not a choice.

Many humans- men, especially- will have sex with anything that moves. They are NOT true homosexuals- they are just...sexual.

----------


## Carlybee

> The particular people I'm thinking about don't fit in that category.  I know them well enough and talked to them enough about their sexual history to know that.  I know it's hard to fathom because of all of the propaganda, but there are really people who, without any predisposition to being gay as a child, experimented later, found out they liked it, and kept doing it.  Sexuality isn't as fixed as the media would have you believe.


Maybe not in all cases...which would account for bisexuals or people who have an aversion to a particular gender due to socio-psychological reasons...ie a girl who was abused by men then grows to hate men. Whatever the reason doesn't mean they can help what they feel.

----------


## donnay

> So the only gay men around are emasculated? Estrogen doesn't make you want to have gay sex. Let me pump you full of it and we will see if you all of a sudden start running around with glitter and rainbows spurting from you ass.


I didn't say that estrogen or estrogen mimickers are causing gay sex.

----------


## EBounding

I know I should run away from this thread but anyway....

If homosexuality is not a choice and not something that's the result of your living environment, is any kind of lifestyle or behavior a choice?

Now in terms of civil liberties, it doesn't really matter.  I just don't get why all we're told we have free will, except for sexual orientation.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Again. Being gay is not a behavior


Uh, actually it is.

----------


## JK/SEA

Being 'gay' is for the most part genetic. 

Sexual attraction to certain types in straight people can also be categorized as a 'behavior'...i.e. as a straight male i love heavy set hispanic women..etc...

----------


## Matt Collins

> Being 'gay' is for the most part genetic.


That makes no sense whatsoever.

----------


## JK/SEA

> That makes no sense whatsoever.


no sense?...so you don't think 'gay' people are born gay?


i hope not.

----------


## Ender

> no sense?...so you don't think 'gay' people are born gay?
> 
> 
> i hope not.


Apparently several here do not- doesn't fit their agenda of "evil".

----------


## JK/SEA

> Apparently several here do not- doesn't fit their agenda of "evil".


Agreed. I find it interesting there isn't anyone that can defend their assertions of 'gay' people being the way they are via 'its a choice' mantra. Interesting that Matt Collins who purports to be in the music industry hasn't learned anything from the people he 'hangs' with. Its always been my thought that artistic types have a 3 dimensional form of thinking and reasoning. Apparently there are exceptions. Irony.

----------


## Matt Collins

> no sense?...so you don't think 'gay' people are born gay?


Some may be born that way, but a lot of them choose to be that way.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Agreed. I find it interesting there isn't anyone that can defend their assertions of 'gay' people being the way they are via 'its a choice' mantra. Interesting that Matt Collins who purports to be in the music industry hasn't learned anything from the people he 'hangs' with. Its always been my thought that artistic types have a 3 dimensional form of thinking and reasoning. Apparently there are exceptions. Irony.


I'm an engineer, not a musician. And I don't mind working with anyone as long as they keep it to themselves.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Some may be born that way, but a lot of them choose to be that way.


proof?

i thought so.

----------


## JK/SEA

> I'm an engineer, not a musician. And I don't mind working with anyone as long as they keep it to themselves.


noted. I'll be sure to tell Rob Halford.

----------


## Brett85

Disappointing, but since they are a private organization they can make their own decisions.  They should simply be boycotted.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Disappointing, but since they are a private organization they can make their own decisions.  They should simply be boycotted.


good idea. I practice the same thing with organized religions. Too much hate in most members. I don't like the 'stink' that exudes from the typical christian 'extremists' in these cults.

Carry on. You do a fine job of vocalizing your intolerance and homophobe tendencies over something you know nothing of.

----------


## PaleoPaul

> The Boy Scouts may survive, but at what cost?  Was the potential loss in membership worth it for this issue?
> 
> The Boy Scouts admits that 70% of all Scout troops are run by faith-based organizations. Around 37% are Mormon, 10% Methodist and 8% Catholic.


Mormons already said that they would still sponsor the organization.

Methodists are becoming more liberal on the homosexual issue by the day, so I think the BSA can still count on the Methodists.

Catholics, I'm not sure.  I'd say some will and some won't.

----------


## jonhowe

> Uh, actually it is.


Being attracted to the same sex is not a behavior.

----------


## V3n

> Some may be born that way, but a lot of them choose to be that way.


Who the hell would "choose to be that way"?? Who the hell would _choose_ a life of persecution and discrimination?  If they _chose_ to be gay, and life got rough (because life in America for gays IS rough!) wouldn't they then just _un-choose_ it and live an easier, more accepted life?

Thinking that someone has simply _decided_ to be gay is absolutely a ridiculous thought.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Who the hell would "choose to be that way"??


I know several that have

----------


## Carlybee

> I know several that have


I believe if someone chooses to be gay, they were probably leaning that way anyway. I don't doubt a lot of them try to suppress those inclinations due to societal/family pressure and expectations.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

> This is not the country I was born in--seriously!  
> 
> They are really jamming this life-style down our throats to try and divide this country further.  It is neither government nor the people's business what people due behind closed doors. 
> 
> They are seriously exploiting homosexuals anymore.  If I were a homosexual I would take offense at their exploitation.
> 
> The only way, IMHO to stop this is to not give-in to it.  This is nothing more than a hijacked version of the Boy Scouts that I remembered growing up around.  Boys went into boy scouts to learn skills and survival.  Of course TPTB don't want boys learning that!!!


They want boys to be girls

----------


## JK/SEA

> They want boys to be girls


FAIL.

----------


## JK/SEA

I truly believe that homophobes such as we have in this thread are fearful that 'gayness' will rub off on them. Must be a hard life trying to hang onto your 'maleness''...its like they aren't sure of their own sexual identity, so hence the over-compensation and negative attitude towards humans who are genetically pre-disposed to be 'gay'...

----------


## Anti Federalist

> If it's not worth discussing (and I agree, this is not a major issue), WHY DID YOU START THE DAMN THREAD!?


I already said, *I $#@!ing wish I had not*...what's done is done.

Hey, what does it matter anyways, I'm an old white guy, me and my fuddy duddy ideas will be as dead as Julius Caesar before long.

Enjoy your new world.

----------


## muh_roads

> I already said, *I $#@!ing wish I had not*...what's done is done.
> 
> Hey, what does it matter anyways, I'm an old white guy, me and my fuddy duddy ideas will be as dead as Julius Caesar before long.
> 
> Enjoy your new world.


The new world will suck because of multiple reasons.  1-5% of the new world wanting to stick a dick in another consenting $#@! of the same gender won't be the cause.

----------


## jonhowe

> I already said, *I $#@!ing wish I had not*...what's done is done.
> 
> Hey, what does it matter anyways, I'm an old white guy, me and my fuddy duddy ideas will be as dead as Julius Caesar before long.
> 
> Enjoy your new world.


True, and thanks.

----------


## jonhowe

> I know several that have


Hold on. Im gonna think about naked men and try to get an erection. I'll get back to you when it works.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> The new world will suck because of multiple reasons.  1-5% of the new world wanting to stick a dick in another consenting $#@! of the same gender won't be the cause.


Again, missing the point totally.

----------


## Brett85

No one "chooses to be gay," but some people become gay because of certain things that happened during their childhood, rather than it simply being a genetic trait that they were born with.

----------


## muh_roads

> Again, missing the point totally.


People are being suckered into a wedge issue that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.  These issues are saved up to make it look like Government cares to give their cattle more of their freedom while angering the other half of the cattle.

Abolishing the IRS, the Federal Reserve, and the regulatory police state is all that matters in destroying an oligarchy.  All other issues will fall into line once those 3 pillars are eliminated.

Boy Scouts receives funds from the state like a welfare queen.  I don't give a $#@! about that organization.  I wish they would ACTUALLY champion self-reliance by sucking on their own tits instead of mine.

The Boy Scouts aren't private.  $#@! the Boy Scouts.  Anybody who is on the nanny-state dole complaining about government telling them what to do deserve everything dictated their way.

----------


## muh_roads

> No one "chooses to be gay," but some people become gay because of certain things that happened during their childhood, rather than it simply being a genetic trait that they were born with.


This claim is false until human beings fully understand the brain.  They still do not.

----------


## James Madison

> no sense?...so you don't think 'gay' people are born gay?
> 
> 
> i hope not.


People aren't really 'born' anything, other than alive. Environmental factors can contribute to phenotypic behavior patterns, including sexual preference, and this may account for much of its variation within the public. Prior to gestation, mutations in certain genes, in addition to non-disjunction or relocation, can produce 'XX males' and 'XY females'. Estrogen-mimicking compounds or abnormal gene expression in mothers could also play a role. This could go a long way to understanding sexual preference; far better than just the generic 'he's born gay' (re: conceived gay).

----------


## Michigan11

Great sounds like the gayness is spreading! Don't catch ***!

----------


## JK/SEA

//

----------


## JK/SEA

> People aren't really 'born' anything, other than alive. Environmental factors can contribute to phenotypic behavior patterns, including sexual preference, and this may account for much of its variation within the public. Prior to gestation, mutations in certain genes, in addition to non-disjunction or relocation, can produce 'XX males' and 'XY females'. Estrogen-mimicking compounds or abnormal gene expression in mothers could also play a role. This could go a long way to understanding sexual preference; far better than just the generic 'he's born gay' (re: conceived gay).


Theory is just theory.

----------


## Southron

> Mormons already said that they would still sponsor the organization.
> 
> Methodists are becoming more liberal on the homosexual issue by the day, so I think the BSA can still count on the Methodists.
> 
> Catholics, I'm not sure.  I'd say some will and some won't.


As much I disagree with Southern Baptists, I doubt they will continue to sponsor.

----------


## NationalAnarchist

> The girl scouts have allowed lesbian membership for years, and allow discussions on planned parenthood, etc etc.
> 
> Glad to see your house is a bastion of individual freedom.
> 
> Also, your threatening/condescending PMs to certain members on this forum need to stop, or you're out of here.  Yes, PMs can be flagged for moderators to see.


They are none in my daughters troop guess its going to have to be a case to case basis...oh and that certain member needs to grow up and put his big boy britches on and stop neg repping anyone who disagrees with him. Or me and him can just get into a neg rep war personally I don't care. He wants to neg rep people then not expect it back that ain't the way it goes.I will just put little whiner on ignore since he cries about everything that's said to him.

----------


## jonhowe

> They are none *that I know of* in my daughters troop guess its going to have to be a case to case basis...


fixed. Society is good at encouraging people to keep it on the down low.

----------


## jmdrake

> Being 'gay' is for the most part genetic.


You realize that your statement has never actually been proven and is so disputed in the medical community that the American Psychological Association backed off that stance several years ago and now says nobody knows for sure what determines sexual orientation?  No?  They didn't tell you that in the MSM?  There has been no "gay gene" found yet.  Maybe there will be someday who knows?  Until then it's a big fat unknown and the "it's genetic" or "mostly genetic" position is being pushed for political reasons to get homosexuals classified as a "suspect class" under federal anti-discrimination laws.

----------


## jmdrake

> People aren't really 'born' anything, other than alive. Environmental factors can contribute to phenotypic behavior patterns, including sexual preference, and this may account for much of its variation within the public. Prior to gestation, mutations in certain genes, in addition to non-disjunction or relocation, can produce 'XX males' and 'XY females'. Estrogen-mimicking compounds or abnormal gene expression in mothers could also play a role. This could go a long way to understanding sexual preference; far better than just the generic 'he's born gay' (re: conceived gay).





> Theory is just theory.


I agree.  And the theory you positied (JK/SEA) is just theory as well.  At least James Madison gave some reasons for his theory.  At the end of the day, nobody knows for sure.

----------


## Don Lapre

> Agreed. I find it interesting there isn't anyone that can defend their assertions of 'gay' people being the way they are via 'its a choice' mantra.


Homosexuals have an overwhelming impulse to have sex with the same sex.
Indeed.

A pedophile will tell you that he has an overwhelming impulse to have sex with children.


Is it your take that a pedophile was born that way?

----------


## jonhowe

> Homosexuals have an overwhelming impulse to have sex with the same sex.
> Indeed.
> 
> A pedophile will tell you that he has an overwhelming impulse to have sex with children.
> 
> 
> Is it your take that a pedophile was born that way?


Perhaps. But pedophelia requires rape, as children cannot consent to sexual activity.

The way I was born, I find women sexually attractive. That doesn't make it ok for me to rape or otherwise take advantage of them. If pedophilia is something you're born with (again, I don't know 100% for sure), well, that really sucks, but you still can't take advantage of children.

----------


## Don Lapre

Why _perhaps_?

Those with your view make the claim that a human who goes into ---> this sexual activity (homosexuality) was born that way, but balk at saying that a human who goes into ---> another sexual activity (pedophelia) was born that way.


A human is a human.

You are differentiating based strictly on the agenda you are pursuing.

----------


## Ranger29860

> Perhaps. But pedophelia requires rape, as children cannot consent to sexual activity.
> 
> The way I was born, I find women sexually attractive. That doesn't make it ok for me to rape or otherwise take advantage of them. If pedophilia is something you're born with (again, I don't know 100% for sure), well, that really sucks, but you still can't take advantage of children.


Don't even engage with him, trust me its a lost cause.

----------


## bolil

> Why _perhaps_?
> 
> Those with your view make the claim that a human who goes into ---> this sexual activity (homosexuality) was born that way, but balk at saying that a human who goes into ---> another sexual activity (pedophelia) was born that way.
> 
> 
> A human is a human.
> 
> You are differentiating based strictly on the agenda you are pursuing.


Children cannot consent to sexual activity.  That is not agenda, it is a line drawn.  When a person stops being a child?  that is the question.  Pederast behavior deserves vigilante justice.

A human is a human.  A child is a child.  A rapist is a rapist.

----------


## Don Lapre

> Children cannot consent to sexual activity.  That is not agenda, it is a line drawn.  When a person stops being a child?  that is the question.  Pederast behavior deserves vigilante justice.
> 
> A human is a human.  A child is a child.  A rapist is a rapist.


What you've said has ZERO to do with my question.


If someone wants to say, _"All humans are born with their sexuality,"_ we can go from that starting point and have a discussion about it.

But if someone says, _"People who engage in homosexuality were definitely born that way... but I'm not sure people who engage in ANOTHER sexual behavior were born that way."_


It is absurd on it's face -- and it's very obvious that an agenda is being pursued.

----------


## JK/SEA

> What you've said has ZERO to do with my question.
> 
> 
> If someone wants to say, _"All humans are born with their sexuality,"_ we can go from that starting point and have a discussion about it.
> 
> But if someone says, _"People who engage in homosexuality were definitely born that way... but I'm not sure people who engage in ANOTHER sexual behavior were born that way."_
> 
> 
> It is absurd on it's face -- and it's very obvious that an agenda is being pursued.


so whats your explanation of this 'phenomenon'...if its not genetic, and its not considered a 'choice'...then what is it?....

Being a pedophile is considered a deviancy, as is beastiality. In both cases its a 'power' and control mindset, and yes, people can be born 'that way'. 

With homosexuality, we are discussing a behavior between CONSENTING adult humans.... Mileage may differ.

And yes, a person is born that way. Get over it.

----------


## Don Lapre

> so whats your explanation of this 'phenomenon'...if its not genetic, and its not considered a 'choice'...then what is it?....


It obviously IS a choice.

I have no doubt that very powerful urges are at play, but you can't escape the reality that a CHOICE is ultimately made.

One guy chooses to get it on with men and another guy chooses not to get it on with men.






> And yes, a person is born that way.


Just because you say so?

I don't agree.

----------


## jonhowe

> Why _perhaps_?


Because, while I understand it to be the case, and have read and seen things to support it, it is not something I consider myself an expert on.
If i don't have a folder on my hard drive filled with scientific and other papers, I try not to speak too authoritatively.

----------


## jmdrake

> so whats your explanation of this 'phenomenon'...if its not genetic, and its not considered a 'choice'...then what is it?....


From the American Psychological Association....

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
_What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation._

Now consider this possibility.  A child is molested at an age where he is too young to consciously remember it.  Assume, as evidence suggest, that boys who are molested are more likely to have struggles with sexuality as adults.  Would that person feel like he had a "choice"?  He didn't choose to be molested.  But what happened to him wasn't genetic either.  And, as I stated earlier in this thread, there are many people that have many impulses and urges that can be traced to something other than genetics that, at this point in their lives, don't feel like a "choice."

The bottom line is this.  It's unscientific to scream "It's genetic!  It's genetic!" when the science itself says that's not conclusive.  You, and others like you, are substituting political expediency for science.  If you believe that sexuality is genetic, the burden is on you to come up with actual evidence to prove that belief.  The evidence is not on the other side to prove some other reason.

----------


## Ender

> From the American Psychological Association....
> 
> http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
> _What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
> 
> There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation._
> 
> Now consider this possibility.  A child is molested at an age where he is too young to consciously remember it.  Assume, as evidence suggest, that boys who are molested are more likely to have struggles with sexuality as adults.  Would that person feel like he had a "choice"?  He didn't choose to be molested.  But what happened to him wasn't genetic either.  And, as I stated earlier in this thread, there are many people that have many impulses and urges that can be traced to something other than genetics that, at this point in their lives, don't feel like a "choice."
> 
> The bottom line is this.  It's unscientific to scream "It's genetic!  It's genetic!" when the science itself says that's not conclusive.  You, and others like you, are substituting political expediency for science.  If you believe that sexuality is genetic, the burden is on you to come up with actual evidence to prove that belief.  The evidence is not on the other side to prove some other reason.


Ah, yes, Science. The same ideology that can't figure out if Pluto is a planet? That is the basis for the great American diet? Monsanto? Cancer "cures"? 

I have a friend who is a physicist who says he loves his job because "Truth changes every seven years."

Your "possibility" isn't any more "scientific" than anything else that has been spouted on this thread.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Boy Scouts receives funds from the state like a welfare queen.  I don't give a $#@! about that organization.


Actually no they don't; your ignorance is showing.

----------


## jonhowe

> Ah, yes, Science. The same ideology that can't figure out if Pluto is a planet? That is the basis for the great American diet? Monsanto? Cancer "cures"? 
> 
> I have a friend who is a physicist who says he loves his job because "Truth changes every seven years."
> 
> Your "possibility" isn't any more "scientific" than anything else that has been spouted on this thread.



So lets assume homosexuality is something your born with: how would that change your position?
And now lets assume homosexuality is something you don't choose, but is a product of events in your life: how would that change your position?
And finally, lets assume it's a choice: how would that change your position?

Quick note on that last one: I'm still trying to get an erection from thinking about naked men. So far nothing. Maybe if I just try harder...

----------


## JK/SEA

> From the American Psychological Association....
> 
> http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
> _What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
> 
> There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation._
> 
> Now consider this possibility.  A child is molested at an age where he is too young to consciously remember it.  Assume, as evidence suggest, that boys who are molested are more likely to have struggles with sexuality as adults.  Would that person feel like he had a "choice"?  He didn't choose to be molested.  But what happened to him wasn't genetic either.  And, as I stated earlier in this thread, there are many people that have many impulses and urges that can be traced to something other than genetics that, at this point in their lives, don't feel like a "choice."
> 
> The bottom line is this.  It's unscientific to scream "It's genetic!  It's genetic!" when the science itself says that's not conclusive.  You, and others like you, are substituting political expediency for science.  If you believe that sexuality is genetic, the burden is on you to come up with actual evidence to prove that belief.  The evidence is not on the other side to prove some other reason.


Studies are pointless in this case, and the very 1st sentence mentions NO CONSENSUS. Do you know why?...because its OBVIOUS that certain humans are BORN with a propensity to be attracted to their own sex. Its neither normal nor abnormal. Humans are a complex being..no?...and people are BORN with all kinds of mental, physical attributes, sexual attributes are no exception. It really is too bad that religious upbringing and phobias have contributed to the negative connotations. As far as an 'agenda'...yes, there is, and its coming from people with a complete lack of understanding of the human spirit, and what makes us special due to their own domestic environment. I think its sad that this issue is so divisive. It shouldn't be. 

If this private organization wants to include gay humans, so be it.

----------


## muh_roads

> Actually no they don't; your ignorance is showing.


Your inability to use Google is showing.

https://www.google.com/#gs_rn=14&gs_...=1920&bih=1036

----------


## Noob

Idaho sheriff may drop Boy Scouts charter

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/N...208963781.html

----------


## JK/SEA

cue the knuckle draggers.

----------


## WhistlinDave

It's interesting to me that on a Libertarian forum there's so much discussion over whether people are born gay or whether people choose to be or behave that way.  As if we should give gay people more allowance or respect for their freedom one way or the other.

If it isn't genetic, or partially genetic, so what?  If some individuals are born straight or bi and then later choose to be gay or live a gay lifestyle, why does it matter?  As long as people aren't hurting others or infringing on the liberty of others, then *do you believe people should be free to pursue their happiness in whatever way makes them most happy, or not?* 

The nature vs. nurture debate, of all places, should be moot here.  At least in my mind.

----------


## jmdrake

> Studies are pointless in this case, and the very 1st sentence mentions NO CONSENSUS. Do you know why?...because its OBVIOUS that certain humans are BORN with a propensity to be attracted to their own sex.


  Actually there's no consensus because...there's no consensus.  There are a lot of sexual deviations that most people don't have that some people do.  Does that mean those that are all "born that way"?  Richard Gere was born with an urge to use gerbils for sexual pleasure?  Such a conclusion would be beyond silly.




> If this private organization wants to include gay humans, so be it.


With that much I agree.  It's said that said organisation has been bullied over the issue for years.  And doubly sad that people like yourself feel the need to warp science in order to pursue a political agenda.  Why can't you just admit you're wrong?  You have no evidence of a genetic link to sexual orientation.  That should be common knowledge by now.  If/when you finally do get that evidence, I'm sure you'll let the rest of us know.

----------


## jmdrake

> It's interesting to me that on a Libertarian forum there's so much discussion over whether people are born gay or whether people choose to be or behave that way.  As if we should give gay people more allowance or respect for their freedom one way or the other.
> 
> If it isn't genetic, or partially genetic, so what?  If some individuals are born straight or bi and then later choose to be gay or live a gay lifestyle, why does it matter?  As long as people aren't hurting others or infringing on the liberty of others, then *do you believe people should be free to pursue their happiness in whatever way makes them most happy, or not?* 
> 
> The nature vs. nurture debate, of all places, should be moot here.  At least in my mind.


I explained this earlier, but some people are so interested in pursuing their own agendas (not you) that they missed it.  This all goes back to the way the federal government has shaped civil rights law.  You may have heard Jon Stossel make the asinine argument, in defense of Rand to his credit, that the federal government could make a black person serve a klansman.  Well....not under federal civil rights law as written because being a klansman is a choice, it's not genetic.  That said, I believe someone has the right to be a klansman.  But it's different to talk about how the government treats a person and how the government forces someone else to treat a person.

----------


## muh_roads

> I explained this earlier, but some people are so interested in pursuing their own agendas (not you) that they missed it.  This all goes back to the way the federal government has shaped civil rights law.  You may have heard Jon Stossel make the asinine argument, in defense of Rand to his credit, that the federal government could make a black person serve a klansman.  Well....not under federal civil rights law as written because being a klansman is a choice, it's not genetic.  That said, I believe someone has the right to be a klansman.  But it's different to talk about how the government treats a person and how the government forces someone else to treat a person.


And I said if you're going to take public funds, then being dictated to on how you operate is your own fault.  People should've left the Boy Scouts a long time ago the moment it was no longer privately funded on its own.

----------


## jmdrake

> Ah, yes, Science. The same ideology that can't figure out if Pluto is a planet? That is the basis for the great American diet? Monsanto? Cancer "cures"?


Oh don't be ridiculous.  If you're going to through out science on this issue, what are you left with?  Religion?  In that case who's religion is right?  If I recall you're Mormon.  Mormons traditionally held the belief that homosexuality is a sin.  Maybe Joseph Smith and the rest of your leaders were wrong.  Maybe not.

But all of that is irrelevant.  If someone is going to make a scientific claim, that homosexuality is genetic, then that claim *must* be based on *some* kind of science. 




> I have a friend who is a physicist who says he loves his job because "Truth changes every seven years."
> 
> Your "possibility" isn't any more "scientific" than anything else that has been spouted on this thread.


Actually my position is the only one in this thread that's scientific.  That's a fact whether you have the honesty to admit it or not.  Those who are saying "It's a choice" are not being scientifically accurate.  Those that say "It's genetic" are not being scientifically accurate.  The only scientifically accurate statement is "Nobody knows."  It's illogical for you to be offended by that obvious fact.

----------


## jmdrake

> And I said if you're going to take public funds, then being dictated to on how you operate is your own fault.  People should've left the Boy Scouts a long time ago the moment it was no longer privately funded on its own.


It's what may eventually happen to groups that aren't or don't consider themselves to be, publicly funded that's concerning.  And this is the problem that I have with private school vouchers.  Sure, on the one hand it makes sense.  If the public school is going to tax me to pay for crappy schools, I should be able to take some of that tax money and send my kid to a decent private school.  But then...eventually...someone's going to come along a say "All those private schools are really taking public funds so the government should be able to boss them around."  People will ignore the fact that the tax money is ill gotten gain to the government anyway.

----------


## Ender

> Oh don't be ridiculous.  If you're going to through out science on this issue, what are you left with?  Religion?  In that case who's religion is right?  If I recall you're Mormon.  Mormons traditionally held the belief that homosexuality is a sin.  Maybe Joseph Smith and the rest of your leaders were wrong.  Maybe not.
> 
> But all of that is irrelevant.  If someone is going to make a scientific claim, that homosexuality is genetic, then that claim *must* be based on *some* kind of science. 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually my position is the only one in this thread that's scientific.  That's a fact whether you have the honesty to admit it or not.  Those who are saying "It's a choice" are not being scientifically accurate.  Those that say "It's genetic" are not being scientifically accurate.  The only scientifically accurate statement is "Nobody knows."  It's illogical for you to be offended by that obvious fact.


I'm not a Mormon- I'm a non-denominational Minister under a Vow of Poverty. And I'm not offended- I actually respect you and agree with many of your positions- just not this one.

I've just known too many suffering gays to believe that they were making a choice to be gay.

And I totally agree about the vouchers, BTW- .gov should not be involved in education, in any way, shape, or form.

----------


## wetroof

In an all male setting like scouts can you really have boys that are declaring openly they are gay? I can't imagine boys getting along like this. there is always some kind of social hierarchy I believe that is pronounced with children, and declaring you are gay makes you inferior.

There should be a study done like when the first blacks integrated into white schools.. but with the first gay children. but maybe it already happened and it works. no idea.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> In an all male setting like scouts can you really have boys that are declaring openly they are gay? I can't imagine boys getting along like this. there is always some kind of social hierarchy I believe that is pronounced with children, and declaring you are gay makes you inferior.


From what I recall before quitting Scouts, the "best" ones were... different.  The "best" being those that collected all those merit badges, advanced the ranks, and generally sucked up to the adults/leadership running it.  Starting with Cub Scouts, you have a groups of normal boys from all stratum.  When I quit after a few months of Boys Scouts (which is after a few years of Cub Scouts), it was likely 25-50% gay.  The jocks had left to do sports.  Normal guys went off to chase girls, smoke pot, watch sports, form "gangs" (as much as white middle class youth in near-zero crime neighborhoods could).

Perhaps I sensed not being wanted there anymore (not that I was an atheist yet, but - no doubt - the seed was growing).

Given the freak show it turns into, how to you define "inferior"?  Will the adults care?  Not if page 27 of the handbook tells them not to.  Besides, what's the bull$#@! about "declaring openly they are gay"?  The declarations - whether true or not - were openly made by classmates at school.  The only thing an open _self-_declaration might do is change the subject.

The history of the organization is paranoid homophobia:




> In 1912, 29% of the Scoutmasters were clergymen (the largest group), while 10% of the Scoutmasters were teachers. BSA did not like the fact that almost 40% of their Scoutmasters were in "non-masculine" professions. They felt that the presence of clergymen and teachers would damage BSA's image of masculinity.
> 
> Consequently, during the first decade of Scouting, BSA quietly discouraged the recruitment and retention of clergymen and teachers . By 1921, only 15% of the Scoutmasters were clergymen, while 9% were teachers. After 1921, BSA did not request the occupation of its Scoutmasters on their applications.
> 
> http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/girls-top.html


Now I know why scoutmaster had that mustache!

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm not a Mormon- I'm a non-denominational Minister under a Vow of Poverty. And I'm not offended- I actually respect you and agree with many of your positions- just not this one.
> 
> I've just known too many suffering gays to believe that they were making a choice to be gay.
> 
> And I totally agree about the vouchers, BTW- .gov should not be involved in education, in any way, shape, or form.


Fine.  And, as I've explained earlier, I've seen far too many people suffer from compulsive behavior that conflicts with their Christian viewpoints but that *nobody* believes is genetic to accept the "Well it must be genetic because people are conflicted about it" explanation.  I even gave a possible scenario of how someone could be gay, never remember becoming gay, and yet it not be genetic.  (Child molested before having conscious memories).  Other have mentioned other possible non-genetic reasons.  (Estrogen exposure from various sources such as plastics, GMO soy, and even flushed birth control pills ending up in the water supply).  Sorry, but I just don't by the "Hey let's take a science shortcut to fit a view I believe" argument.  And I agree with WhistlingDave that on a certain level, it shouldn't matter.  Without artificial government pressure it wouldn't be such a big issue.  People that believe being gay is predetermined either through genetics or some other reason could be free to join your church.  People who believe otherwise could be free to join some other church.  Nobody should be beat up for being gay for whatever reason they are gay.  Marriage licenses shouldn't exist.  Those who are comfortable with their sons sharing tents with openly gay boys should be able to join a scouting organization that allows that.  Those that aren't comfortable should be able to have their own alternative.

Finally, you're really shooting yourself in the foot by insisting on a "genetic" explanation.  Say if the science came back conclusive that the increase in homosexuality was due not to genetics or to it being more acceptable, but to early exposure to estrogen?  That still wouldn't change your "It's not their choice" position.  Insisting that it must be genetic boxes yourself into a corner and just makes you look silly.  I still respect you overall.  We all take a silly position at some point.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Actually there's no consensus because...there's no consensus.  There are a lot of sexual deviations that most people don't have that some people do.  Does that mean those that are all "born that way"?  Richard Gere was born with an urge to use gerbils for sexual pleasure?  Such a conclusion would be beyond silly.
> 
> 
> 
> With that much I agree.  It's said that said organisation has been bullied over the issue for years.  And doubly sad that people like yourself feel the need to warp science in order to pursue a political agenda.  Why can't you just admit you're wrong?  You have no evidence of a genetic link to sexual orientation.  That should be common knowledge by now.  If/when you finally do get that evidence, I'm sure you'll let the rest of us know.


Scientific evidence of something obvious?...

This is not a trial. Humans born with homosexual tendencies is a fact, and i base that on what i see, and from my interactions throughout my daily trek through life.

Has there been a 'scientific' study on why there are hetero-sexuals? what were the results? and how do the results match up to gay tendencies?...

I swear. It really is becoming more and more clear that gay bashing comes from latent gay tendencies from posters in here with mis-guided guilt. Fess up, come out, you'll feel better about yourself and life in general. Hanging on to this faux hate will give you a coronary.

----------


## JK/SEA

> I still respect you overall.  We all take a silly position at some point.


pot, kettle, black.

----------


## jmdrake

> Scientific evidence of something obvious?...


If you're going to make a scientific claim, that sexuality is based on genetics, you need scientific evidence.  Sorry if the truth offends you, but it's still the truth.

----------


## jmdrake

> pot, kettle, black.


Right.  Agreeing with scientists that the cause of sexual orientation is still unknown is "silly" on my part because you say so.

----------


## WhistlinDave



----------


## phill4paul

I can't believe anyone is still arrested for a small amount of weed. I'd stay away from Harmony Park...




>

----------


## WhistlinDave

I agree, Phill.  It's ludicrous.

----------


## Michigan11

> 


Lmao "in through the back door"

----------


## LibertyEagle

> If I get financial aid to go to school, am I public property?


Yes.

When will you be over to mow my lawn?

----------


## JK/SEA

> Right.  Agreeing with scientists that the cause of sexual orientation is still unknown is "silly" on my part because you say so.


obvious realities don't require some pseudo scientist with his/her agenda to pontificate on something as benign as ones sexual preferences that are 'obvious'.

i.e..why do female humans have breasts?, and why are there human males born with male genitals also born with female breasts, and are effiminate and bi-sexual? according to your distorted opinion, this would be considered 'a choice'...

----------


## amy31416

I don't understand why gay folks wouldn't just start their own version of the scouts if they want to be a part of it so badly.

----------


## jmdrake

> obvious realities don't require some pseudo scientist with his/her agenda to pontificate on something as benign as ones sexual preferences that are 'obvious'.


"Obviously" you are the one with the agenda.  And you're doing a poor job supporting it.




> i.e..why do female humans have breasts?, and why are there human males born with male genitals also born with female breasts, and are effiminate and bi-sexual? according to your distorted opinion, this would be considered 'a choice'...


i.e. you've run out of even halfway intelligent things to say at this point.  I don't know why some people prefer sheep.  It must be genetic "obviously".  

I have a son who likes to chew his toenails.  I didn't teach him to do that.  I don't know anyone else who does that.  He hasn't seen it on TV to my knowledge.  I discourage him from doing it, but he does it anyway.  It must "obviously" be genetic.

----------


## Ender

> I don't understand why gay folks wouldn't just start their own version of the scouts if they want to be a part of it so badly.


Maybe because gay folks, like most other people, would like to just be part of a program w/o being categorized. Like maybe a woman would like to be a "pilot", not a female pilot. Or an older musician would just like to be a musician, not a "grampa musician".

Most of the scouts are kids; they are not going to be going on sexual rampages- they just want to learn and be part of something they can be proud of.

----------


## JK/SEA

> I don't understand why gay folks wouldn't just start their own version of the scouts if they want to be a part of it so badly.


It would be a great advancement in human history if people would learn what the word 'tolerance' means. And to actually practice it. But sadly, there are too many who cling to antiquated ideas and opinions. 

The best way to change things is to 'damn the torpedoes, and full speed ahead' . Eventually, this ignorance will subside...hopefully...but i can't help but think civilization is emerging big time into 'Idiocracy'. So i continue to hope.

----------


## amy31416

> Maybe because gay folks, like most other people, would like to just be part of a program w/o being categorized. Like maybe a woman would like to be a "pilot", not a female pilot. Or an older musician would just like to be a musician, not a "grampa musician".
> 
> Most of the scouts are kids; they are not going to be going on sexual rampages- they just want to learn and be part of something they can be proud of.


I understand that, but if I had a gay kid, I sure as hell wouldn't trust him/her with a homophobic organization.




> It would be a great advancement in human history if people would learn what the word 'tolerance' means. And to actually practice it. But sadly, there are too many who cling to antiquated ideas and opinions. 
> 
> The best way to change things is to 'damn the torpedoes, and full speed ahead' . Eventually, this ignorance will subside...hopefully...but i can't help but think civilization is emerging big time into 'Idiocracy'.


Yeah, until there's genuine tolerance rather than politically correct "acceptance," I won't be too trusting of these groups.

----------


## JK/SEA

> I understand that, but if I had a gay kid, I sure as hell wouldn't trust him/her with a homophobic organization.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, until there's genuine tolerance rather than politically correct "acceptance," I won't be too trusting of these groups.


if you knew a person as a honest to God Ron Paul supporter was gay, and they ran for your GOP local county chair, would you vote for them?

----------


## amy31416

> if you knew a person as a honest to God Ron Paul supporter was gay, and they ran for your GOP local county chair, would you vote for them?


Of course. Not sure why you're asking, unless I unintentionally came across as homophobic.

----------


## Danan

> I don't understand why gay folks wouldn't just start their own version of the scouts if they want to be a part of it so badly.


Or blacks.

----------


## amy31416

> Or blacks.


Sure. I don't have any issue with BET or the NAACP.

----------


## wormyguy

> Sure. I don't have any issue with BET or the NAACP.


White people can and do watch BET or become members of the NAACP.

----------


## amy31416

> White people can and do watch BET or become members of the NAACP.


Great. That's the NAACP's choice. I don't think anyone pushed them into it. I don't think anyone pushes white people to watch BET.

----------


## Danan

> Sure. I don't have any issue with BET or the NAACP.


Did the Boy Scouts at one point not allow black scouts? If so (and if not, just suppose it was the case), should they not have changed it? Should blacks - and white people within the Scouts who were against this ridiculous ban - not have campaigned to change these rules? Should blacks have started their own "Black Scouts of America"?

I'm not saying the government should force them to let anyone join, be it blacks, gays, or whoever. I'm saying, however, that it's not unreasonable to campaign in favor of it. The way I understand it the Boy Scouts changed their own rules. And obviously all of the people voting were straight, or else they could not have been members. 
Nothing wrong with that, imho.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Or blacks.


what about redheads? we're a maligned group as well....yes..i'm a redhead, and i got stories...

----------


## JK/SEA

> Of course. Not sure why you're asking, unless I unintentionally came across as homophobic.


Sorry Amy...didn't mean to imply. I suppose i'm just trying to rattle some homophobe cages in here..

----------


## amy31416

See, here's the thing--the BSA was pushed into this by political correctness--would you trust them to be responsible for your gay child? I sure as hell wouldn't.

That was one of my points. My other point is that gays always have the option to start their own organizations--why do they need to be in Christian organizations that look down on homosexuality? How does that make sense?

----------


## amy31416

> Did the Boy Scouts at one point not allow black scouts? If so (and if not, just suppose it was the case), should they not have changed it? Should blacks - and white people within the Scouts who were against this ridiculous ban - not have campaigned to change these rules? Should blacks have started their own "Black Scouts of America"?
> 
> I'm not saying the government should force them to let anyone join, be it blacks, gays, or whoever. I'm saying, however, that it's not unreasonable to campaign in favor of it. The way I understand it the Boy Scouts changed their own rules. And obviously all of the people voting were straight, or else they could not have been members. 
> Nothing wrong with that, imho.


Petition away--no problem with that. But am I going to fight to join the "He-man women haters club" or start a club of my own?

(The latter.)

----------


## Danan

> Petition away--no problem with that. But am I going to fight to join the "He-man women haters club" or start a club of my own?
> 
> (The latter.)


I suppose these gay Scouts and their parents know better what's good for them than I do. If they don't feel welcome in the BSA, they won't join. Some of them obviously prefer to be a member of BSA, than to start their own organization.

And that makes much sense to me. If I were gay and interested in scouting (neither of which is true), I would want to do that with my local friends, regardless their sexual orientation. I wouldn't see the point in joining an all-gay scouting organization - which probably wouldn't even come to exist since a) there aren't too many openly gays in one area anyway, let alone those who are interested in scouting and b) that would have a sexual undertone, when it's really just about scouting.

I also don't believe the BSA was pressured by PC. I believe it's more likely that many boys entered the BSA when they hadn't any sexual preference at all and later realized that they were gay (or "developed into it" for those who think that's more likely, whatever). All of the sudden they would have to be thrown out of the BSA for no real reason and most likely their friends, their friends' parents and their scouting leaders weren't really happy about that, since they liked these kids too. And since being gay is less of a stigma today than it was decades ago, the organization changed its rules to stop this. Good move, imho.

But whether or not anyone of us believes it was a good or a bad decision, they most certainly had the right to decide that way.

----------


## Ender

> See, here's the thing--the BSA was pushed into this by political correctness--would you trust them to be responsible for your gay child? I sure as hell wouldn't.
> 
> That was one of my points. My other point is that gays always have the option to start their own organizations--why do they need to be in Christian organizations that look down on homosexuality? How does that make sense?


First of all, parents are usually heavily involved in scouting programs.

Second, these are KIDS- many are just beginning that confusing transition into puberty. And most of them are not going to be engaged in any kind of sexual stuff.

Third, I know many gays who are Christians.

Fourth, AGAIN- it is nice to just belong to a learning organization w/o being categorized.

----------


## Ender

> I suppose these gay Scouts and their parents know better what's good for them than I do. If they don't feel welcome in the BSA, they won't join. Some of them obviously prefer to be a member of BSA, than to start their own organization.
> 
> And that makes much sense to me. If I were gay and interested in scouting (neither of which is true), I would want to do that with my local friends, regardless their sexual orientation. I wouldn't see the point in joining an all-gay scouting organization - which probably wouldn't even come to exist since a) there aren't too many openly gays in one area anyway, let alone those who are interested in scouting and b) that would have a sexual undertone, when it's really just about scouting.
> 
> I also don't believe the BSA was pressured by PC. I believe it's more likely that many boys entered the BSA when they hadn't any sexual preference at all and later realized that they were gay (or "developed into it" for those who think that's more likely, whatever). All of the sudden they would have to be thrown out of the BSA for no real reason and most likely their friends, their friends' parents and their scouting leaders weren't really happy about that, since they liked these kids too. And since being gay is less of a stigma today than it was decades ago, the organization changed its rules to stop this. Good move, imho.
> 
> But whether or not anyone of us believes it was a good or a bad decision, they most certainly had the right to decide that way.


Great comment- I agree wholeheartedly.

----------


## amy31416

Then go ahead and have some gay children and let scout leaders who you know have been traditionally homophobic be responsible for them.

Just seems like a dumb thing to do. And you do not know if they'll be involved in anything sexual or violent, for that matter. I'm not going to try to change a zebra's stripes, as the saying may or may not go. I also don't nag, I don't coerce and I don't try to force other people to believe what I do--even if I find their beliefs unappealing.

----------


## Ender

> Then go ahead and have some gay children and let scout leaders who you know have been traditionally homophobic be responsible for them.
> 
> Just seems like a dumb thing to do. And you do not know if they'll be involved in anything sexual or violent, for that matter. I'm not going to try to change a zebra's stripes, as the saying may or may not go. I also don't nag, I don't coerce and I don't try to force other people to believe what I do--even if I find their beliefs unappealing.


There have always been gay kids in scouting- now it is just recognized.

And for violence-any boy can come from a history of violence- that is usually not a gay trait.

As far as sexuality goes, I believe it is best to make sure that the leaders are top-notch, as sexual deviants have certainly been found among the leadership. Great leaders can be an inspiration to all the boys.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

Is this thread still going on?  I stopped reading after the first couple of posts and ignored it.

Sorry if this has already been covered, but this could be the beginning of the end of BSA.  I'd read an article indicating that fully 60% of scout troupes were sponsored by churches that had a problem with gays and would drop the troupe if it passed.  Haven't seen any follow up to that. 

GSA is widely rumored to be infested with feminist/lesbian scoutmasters.  Never see any press on that.

I've always thought the 2 organizations should go co-ed, at least at the eagle scout level.

-t

----------


## amy31416

> There have always been gay kids in scouting- now it is just recognized.
> 
> And for violence-any boy can come from a history of violence- that is usually not a gay trait.
> 
> As far as sexuality goes, I believe it is best to make sure that the leaders are top-notch, as sexual deviants have certainly been found among the leadership. Great leaders can be an inspiration to all the boys.


I'm talking about violence against them because they've been left in the care of someone who's biased and might look the other way. If I had a child and realized he was gay, I'd get him out of the scouts unless I absolutely trusted the scout leader to not be homophobic. You might want to use your child as a guinea pig, but I wouldn't.

----------


## Ender

> I'm talking about violence against them because they've been left in the care of someone who's biased and might look the other way. If I had a child and realized he was gay, I'd get him out of the scouts unless I absolutely trusted the scout leader to not be homophobic. You might want to use your child as a guinea pig, but I wouldn't.


Again- parents are usually heavily involved in scouts. I would be always  involved as a parent, whether my child was gay or straight.

----------


## amy31416

> Again- parents are usually heavily involved in scouts. I would be always  involved as a parent, whether my child was gay or straight.


You're just continuing to argue because you think I have something against homosexuals. I do not. And I would not trust the leadership of an organization that has been traditionally homophobic for whatever reason, and unless you're the troop leader, you will not always be there.

----------


## ThePenguinLibertarian

> This is not the country I was born in--seriously!  
> 
> They are really jamming this life-style down our throats to try and divide this country further.  It is neither government nor the people's business what people due behind closed doors. 
> 
> They are seriously exploiting homosexuals anymore.  If I were a homosexual I would take offense at their exploitation.
> 
> The only way, IMHO to stop this is to not give-in to it.  This is nothing more than a hijacked version of the Boy Scouts that I remembered growing up around.  Boys went into boy scouts to learn skills and survival.  Of course TPTB don't want boys learning that!!!


The boy scouts of 2013 are not the boy scouts of 1917. If i could send my son to the boy scouts of 1917, i would.

----------


## ThePenguinLibertarian

> I do dislike the idea that 'society' has a say in what private people can decide and if it were a law passed, I'd be avidly against it.


Then why is badgering, heckling and threatening by the LGBT community (the power hungry adults, not the kids) considered good, while speaking out with the labels (christian, traditional) are bad? Its unfair, it a managerial state.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

It's changed a lot during the last few decades too.  Check out these PC merit badges:

American Cultures:
http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/...s/mb-ACUL.aspx



American Labor:
http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/...s/mb-AMLB.aspx



Citizenship in the World:
http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/...s/mb-CITW.aspx



Crime Prevention:
http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/...s/mb-CRIP.aspx



Disabilities Awareness:
http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/...s/mb-DISA.aspx



Energy (Green)
http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/...s/mb-ENER.aspx



Environmental Science (for the budding enviro-nazi) :
http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/...s/mb-ENVS.aspx



YEPPERS! - Looks like the Socialists got their noses far under the BSA tent.  Maybe best to start over from scratch...

-t

----------


## jmdrake

> Second, these are KIDS- many are just beginning that confusing transition into puberty. And most of them are not going to be engaged in any kind of sexual stuff.


So none of them become eagle scouts and none are like most heterosexual boys who are at least attempting to oogle what they find sexually attractive by puberty.  Good to know.  /sarc

Seriously, here's the solution to the whole problem.  Forget "boy scouts" or "girl scouts".  Just have "scouts" and everybody sleeps in individual tents.  Problem solved.

----------


## asurfaholic

Just curious, why is a organization that focuses on kids worried about the sexuality and other sexual behavior of the kids? 

If they are misbehaving- you send them home. Otherwise, what business is it to ask what a kid wants to do with his dick?

Sick business if you ask me.

----------


## Southron

> Sorry if this has already been covered, but this could be the beginning of the end of BSA.  I'd read an article indicating that fully 60% of scout troupes were sponsored by churches that had a problem with gays and would drop the troupe if it passed.  Haven't seen any follow up to that.


Not much time has passed yet.  I know a local church that is going to have a meeting tomorrow night about it.

----------


## Michigan11

> Just curious, why is a organization that focuses on kids worried about the sexuality and other sexual behavior of the kids? 
> 
> If they are misbehaving- you send them home. Otherwise, what business is it to ask what a kid wants to do with his dick?
> 
> Sick business if you ask me.


Exactly. Wtf

----------


## jmdrake

> Just curious, why is a organization that focuses on kids worried about the sexuality and other sexual behavior of the kids? 
> 
> If they are misbehaving- you send them home. Otherwise, what business is it to ask what a kid wants to do with his dick?
> 
> Sick business if you ask me.


My understanding is, they weren't asking and were expecting the kids not to tell.  One has to wonder why an adolescent kid would feel the need to share his sexuality with his troop.  Seriously, what's the point?  As "Ender" said, young scouts (not the Eagles) are just coming into puberty and (we hope) aren't engaging in all that "sexual stuff".  So....how does this even come up?  And for that matter, does it even need to come up in a scout leaders point of view?  I've done a lot of work with various youth organizations over the years.  I don't feel the need to tell the kiddies who I'm married to or dating or whatever.

----------


## Michigan11

Well I agree with asurfaholic, as in why is a kids sexual orientation even something someone is talking about. The organization shouldn't have to be in this position, and an outside group tyring to push gay kids into an organization is just as bad. Something is serious wrong with the picture here people!

I also get sick of hearing the word "homophobe", it's same stupid political correctness as "racist" and "anti-semetic". If somebody doesn't like gays or whatever it's okay, it's called diversity.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Well I agree with asurfaholic, as in why is a kids sexual orientation even something someone is talking about. The organization shouldn't have to be in this position, and an outside group tyring to push gay kids into an organization is just as bad. Something is serious wrong with the picture here people!
> 
> I also get sick of hearing the word "homophobe", it's same stupid political correctness as "racist" and "anti-semetic". If somebody doesn't like gays or whatever it's okay, it's called diversity.


no, i think labeling people homophobe, or racist needs to stay in the lexicon. Sadly, people act out violently towards people who are not 'like them'...no?

As long as ignorance and violence  remains towards these 'diverse' people, these people need to be labeled.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> no, i think labeling people homophobe, or racist needs to stay in the lexicon. Sadly, people act out violently towards people who are not 'like them'...no?
> 
> As long as ignorance and violence  remains towards these 'diverse' people, these people need to be labeled.


Yeah, but when someone is so labeled, all it means is that a socialist is loosing an argument 99.9% of the time.

-t

----------


## phill4paul

Hmmm. I'm trying to think how to make this simple.

  I'm a late forties, straight, male. I can hang out with and fish, camp..etc, with my friends teen daughters.  I have no compunction to have sex with them. This, because of my actions, is accepted by my friends. I am trusted.

  Counter: 

  A late forties, homosexual, male. Can't hang out with and fish, camp...etc. with others teen sons. No compunction. Not accepted.

  I dunno. Somehow there is this idea that homosexuals are exclusively pederasts. This is not true.

----------


## Michigan11

> no, i think labeling people homophobe, or racist needs to stay in the lexicon. Sadly, people act out violently towards people who are not 'like them'...no?
> 
> As long as ignorance and violence  remains towards these 'diverse' people, these people need to be labeled.


You can label people all you want but it won't change anything. To say everyone that hate's something acts out on it, is not true at all. I've noticed some people try to really over compensate by calling others homephobic or whatever and it just sounds so stupid today. Who cares if somoene doesn't like gay people, it's okay. Most people aren't gay anyways.

----------


## JK/SEA

> You can label people all you want but it won't change anything. To say everyone that hate's something acts out on it, is not true at all. I've noticed some people try to really over compensate by calling others homephobic or whatever and it just sounds so stupid today. Who cares if somoene doesn't like gay people, it's okay. Most people aren't gay anyways.


irony rears its ugly head. Isn't saying people are stupid a label?

----------


## Michigan11

> irony rears its ugly head. Isn't saying people are stupid a label?


Listen hears the deal, I'm not homophobic or whatever, I just am sick of hearing all of the thought police crap going on since the early 90's when it began. Most people could care less about gayness or not, it's not something that should even be brought up as much as it is. A very small number of people are gay, and that's okay. But people are going around acting as if homophobes are some kind of disease and that somebody should go help them to love gays more. It's just all nonsense, it really is.

We need to get out of this mindset of trying to control everyone's like or dislikes and trying to sculp their personalities.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Yeah, but when someone is so labeled, all it means is that a socialist is loosing an argument 99.9% of the time.
> 
> -t


not if you're stating a fact. If it looks like a duck.....etc.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Listen hears the deal, I'm not homophobic or whatever, I just am sick of hearing all of the thought police crap going on since the early 90's when it began. Most people could care less about gayness or not, it's not something that should even be brought up as much as it is. A very small number of people are gay, and that's okay. But people are going around acting as if homophobes are some kind of disease and that somebody should go help them to love gays more. It's just all nonsense, it really is.
> 
> We need to get out of this mindset of trying to control everyone's like or dislikes and trying to sculp their personalities.


again, sadly gay men, not so much for gay females, get beat up and/or killed...because?....bullies exist, and act out violently towards blacks, gays, muslims etc.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> not if you're stating a fact. If it looks like a duck.....etc.


Wander over to Daily KOAS and jump into a political argument.  I'd give you 5 minutes, 10 tops for at least a dozen people to call you a racist and for you to get banned by the site.

These Socialist weezle words have lost any meaning.

-t

----------


## Michigan11

> again, sadly gay men, not so much for gay females, get beat up and/or killed...because?....bullies exist, and act out violently towards blacks, gays, muslims etc.


Alot of people get beat up! Categorizing each beating is a tricky business of stats.

----------


## Michigan11

I mean how many liberty freedom minded people have been beat up? or liberals or whatever?

----------


## JK/SEA

> Alot of people get beat up! Categorizing each beating is a tricky business of stats.


is that how you justify a gay person getting beat or killed, just because of a genetic trait?....politics is one thing, but attacking someone because of sexual preference or for being black is not the same.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Wander over to Daily KOAS and jump into a political argument.  I'd give you 5 minutes, 10 tops for at least a dozen people to call you a racist and for you to get banned by the site.
> 
> These Socialist weezle words have lost any meaning.
> 
> -t


calling someone a socialist has lost its meaning. You could apply that term to around 300 million people in this country.

----------


## Ender

> My understanding is, they weren't asking and were expecting the kids not to tell.  One has to wonder why an adolescent kid would feel the need to share his sexuality with his troop.  Seriously, what's the point?  As "Ender" said, young scouts (not the Eagles) are just coming into puberty and (we hope) aren't engaging in all that "sexual stuff".  So....how does this even come up?  And for that matter, does it even need to come up in a scout leaders point of view?  I've done a lot of work with various youth organizations over the years.  I don't feel the need to tell the kiddies who I'm married to or dating or whatever.


We agree.

BTW- my name _is_ Ender. Short for Andrew- been called that as long as I can remember.

My parent's loved Ender's Game.  So do I.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

*Kentucky church is dropping its scouting program*
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...couts/2364641/

*Louisville's largest church casts out Boy Scouts*
http://www.wdrb.com/story/22432411/l...out-boy-scouts

*Senator Introduces Bill to Revoke Boy Scout’s Tax-Exempt Status*
http://politicker.com/2013/05/senato...exempt-status/
(It's not what you think.  They want to FORCE BSA to accept openly gay adult leaders)

*Hanover family says talk of sex in Boy Scouts means it's time to leave*
http://www.ydr.com/local/ci_23324380...y-scouts-means

*Kootenai sheriff may drop Boy Scouts charter*
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...couts-charter/

*Priest 'boycotting' Boy Scouts – no financial support*
http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/priest-bo...cat_orig=faith

*Boy Scouts could see pushback from Evangeline Area*
http://www.iberianet.com/news/boy-sc...9bb2963f4.html

*Bryan Fischer: Boy Scouts Are Now ‘The Boy Sodomizers Of America’*
http://radio.foxnews.com/2013/05/25/...rs-of-america/

*Catholic scouting committee 'to study' Boy Scouts' open gay policy*
http://ncronline.org/news/faith-pari...pen-gay-policy

Stemberger said that according to the Boy Scouts' own assessment, the move *will cause as many as 400,000 current members to leave* the organization.
(There are currently 2,658,794 boy scouts, so they are looking at loosing 1/6th of their membership).

"They also predicted they will *lose $30 million of their $300 million budget*," Stemberger said. "That's their estimates. Why they would do this just because some activists are screaming loudly makes no sense to me whatsoever."

*Collin County Leader Resigns From Boy Scouts*
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...NPShRg&cad=rja

*Birmingham area parents and pastors speak out on Boy Scouts policy to allow openly gay youth to join*
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2013/05/...ts_and_pa.html

*Decision to admit gay boy scouts could have repercussions*
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?se...rld&id=9115292

Seventy percent of troops are sponsored by churches. Many of which oppose the change.
...
Wooden serves as pastor of the Upper Room Church of God in Christ in Raleigh. At one time, his congregation donated $5,000 to the Boy Scouts to help them keep the ban on openly gay youth. He says he won't be backing the Boy Scouts in the future.

*Boy Scouts begin their decay*
http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Arti...eir-decay.html

If you check the BSA Website in “How Scouting is Funded” http://www.scouting.org/About/FactSheets/Funding.aspx

You see Contributions from the United Way listed there but not direct funding from the Federal Government.  So the Pressure was not from funding. However *there were threats to bar them from using Federal lands* if they did not allow Gays to join.  We assume it will be alright for Gays to use these lands to promote their agenda but not the Boy Scouts.

*There have been concessions in the past for the Scouts to receive some Government Surplus for camping ETC.* *There was a threat to take this concession away*

*Boy Scout retreat: Impact of looming vote on gays likely to reduce membership*
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ut-membership/

No matter what it decides, the nation’s largest youth organization appears likely to take a membership hit, as local charters on the losing side of the landmark vote — expected Thursday — weigh decisions on whether to stay with the Boy Scouts of America or splinter.

*Anti-gay leaders predict doom for the Boy Scouts*
http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/...oy-scouts.html

The blowback is starting...

-t

----------


## BSU kid

I don't see why any of this matters, I mean ultimately who cares? So some gay children earn a few merit badges, take some hikes and if they are lucky they have an "eagle ceremony"...then they move on with their lives. If you're worried about young folks being corrupted, you needn't worry about a couple gay youth learning to start a fire; you NEED to worry about the liberalization and brainwashing that is going on at public schools. By some estimates, 89% of American students attend public schools, heck I go to one right now...and unless you are strong in your convictions certain professors and curriculums will "liberalize" students. My Public Health class is a good example, we had a teacher who pushed an anti-gun curriculum, and by the end of the class the teacher asked us if we supported outlawing guns and only 2 out of 80 people (me being one of the two) said no. In another class the education professor taught my roommate that the Constitution is "outdated" and it needs to be changed or else our schools will fail; he believed it. So to summarize, *schools/teachers are the threat* not a gay kid roasting marshmallows at a camping retreat.

----------


## phill4paul

> The blowback is starting...
> 
> -t


  I'm sure there were as many refusals when the scouts desegregated.

----------


## I<3Liberty

My brother was in scouts. I went to his awards ceremonies and the pinewood derby -- the vast majority of the boys there were under 13. Of course there were a few high school guys that stuck with it, everyone was there to have a good time doing scouts stuff with their guy friends. Sexuality wasn't a subject of concern. With that, I don't see why the anti-gay people are making a big deal out of allowing gay scouts nor can I see why the gay community should make a big deal out of making BSA allow openly gay scouts.

Even when I did baton twirling in middle and high school, no one talked about their relationships or sexual orientation. You went to practices and performances with focus on twirling. If someone said they were gay no one would be kicked out, no one would have suffered damage to their moral or religious values, and quite frankly, no one would have cared. 

Openly gay, not only gay, straight, asexual, etc. it shouldn't be a topic discussed or of concern in kid's activities.

----------


## Ender

> My brother was in scouts. I went to his awards ceremonies and the pinewood derby -- the vast majority of the boys there were under 13. Of course there were a few high school guys that stuck with it, everyone was there to have a good time doing scouts stuff with their guy friends. Sexuality wasn't a subject of concern. With that, I don't see why the anti-gay people are making a big deal out of allowing gay scouts nor can I see why the gay community should make a big deal out of making BSA allow openly gay scouts.
> 
> Even when I did baton twirling in middle and high school, no one talked about their relationships or sexual orientation. You went to practices and performances with focus on twirling. If someone said they were gay no one would be kicked out, no one would have suffered damage to their moral or religious values, and quite frankly, no one would have cared. 
> 
> Openly gay, not only gay, straight, asexual, etc. it shouldn't be a topic discussed or of concern in kid's activities.


Good post- I am in absolute agreement.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

BTW: Girl Scouts did a study and found that 59% of Girl Scouts thought lesbian and bi-sexual relationships were just fine!

The progressive programming by these GSA role models about LGBT issues is working very well! 

*Where Girls Grow Strong - and Boy Scouts Follow* 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-p...b_3333968.html

When the Boy Scouts were excluding LGBT youth and leaders, the Girl Scouts were admitting everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or religion. From TIME Magazine:

    In their statement of purpose called "What we stand for," the Girl Scouts explicitly reject discrimination of any kind and consider sexual orientation, "a private matter for girls and their families to address." Noting their affirmation of freedom of religion, a founding principle of American life, the Girl Scouts "do not attempt to dictate the form or style of a member's worship" and urge "flexibility" in reciting the Girl Scout Promise. (They are encouraged to substitute the word "God" for something that's more in line with their own spiritual practice.) It's an arresting contrast to the Boy Scouts of America, who in addition to excluding gays also refuse to hire non-believers.

The religion factor in the Boy Scouts' organization has a lot to do with its sponsorship: about 70% of sponsorship funding for the Boy Scouts of America comes from religiously affiliated groups (about half of those groups are Mormon), with the other 30% coming from corporations. The Girl Scouts are funded by corporate backers like Coca-Cola and MetLife.

Aside from religion, I believe the diversity and acceptance of the Girl Scouts of America has to do with its founding: the Girl Scouts of America were formed in 1912 to teach "girls - all girls" to be independent, to make their own decisions, to "help people at all times," to dream big, to be as ambitious as the boys, and to forge a path for themselves in their professional and personal lives. The Girl Scouts were formed because young women were being excluded from the boys' club - so to exclude girls would be hypocritical and counter to its purpose. Two great examples of this inclusion have been the integration of African American Girl Scouts as early as the 1950s, and the recent inclusion of transgender Girl Scout Bobby Montoya showed.

While the Girl Scouts encouraged girls to think critically and to consider others' ideas, the Boy Scouts encouraged boys to think as a team and subscribe to traditionally masculine "duties," an idea growing more outdated as men and women in America grow into less traditional gender roles - a doctrine which makes it more difficult to fully integrate everyone, including LGBT scouts and non-religious scouts, and provide scouts a more accurate picture of the world outside the den.

I think that the inclusion of LGBT scouts in the Boy Scouts of America is a belated, but fantastic step forward. And I do believe that eventually, the Boy Scouts of America will have to include LGBT den leaders. But I think we need to stress to people that both of these additions are good things, that they are signs of a changing and more inclusive nation, and that they will show today's young men that being gay is okay, and will grow more accepting leaders of tomorrow. Just like the Girl Scouts have been doing all this time.

======

*Girl Scouts and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) Agenda*
http://www.100questionsforthegirlsco...gbt_agenda.cfm

We have provided the information in this section to make parents aware that Girl Scouts of the USA is increasingly promoting LGBT issues to girls by featuring prominent LGBT rights activists as role models at Girl Scout events, in Girl Scout materials, and by referring girls to websites that aggressively promote special LGBT rights. 

...

Girl Scouts Connections with Prominent Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) Activists

Question: Does Lynn Cothren, GSUSA’s openly homosexual Director of Administration and prominent homosexual rights advocate, speaker, and former board member of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force influence Girl Scout positions on LGBT issues?

Question: GSUSA Chief of External Affairs, Timothy Higdon, is a prominent LGBT activist, was one of the highest paid employees at Amnesty International and has been a leader in the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Do his activist views influence Girl Scout programming and hiring?

Question: Did the Girl Scouts know when they hired their male spokesperson, Joshua Ackley (aka Joshua Starr) that he is a founder of the “Dead Betties” a now defunct, popular homopunk band that created music videos depicting masturbation, prostitution, and violence against women and who has an album featuring a song called “Sick Days are for Sex”? (Click here for more information about Joshua Ackley. WARNING: This material will be offensive to some readers.) Mr. Ackley represented GSUSA in the “Girls Only” UN workshop where the Girl Scouts denied the “Healthy, Happy, and Hot” brochure had been found.

Question: Why did GSUSA appoint to their board Debra Nakatomi, a professional who provides training in advancing LGBT rights?

Question: Does Debra Nakatomi’s passion for promoting feminist and LGBT causes influence her work as GSUSA International Commissioner to WAGGGS or did it influence her choice when helping GSUSA to hire known LGBT activist Deborah Taft?

Question: Did GSUSA hire LGBT activist and lesbian, Deborah Taft who chaired a fundraiser for an organization that seeks to advance transgender rights, same-sex marriage, and the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because of her history of promoting LGBT rights?

Question:Why did the Girl Scouts select as a 2011 convention speaker and thus a role model for girls, Annise Parker, a woman who is famous for becoming Houston’s first openly lesbian mayor, and whose partner works for Planned Parenthood?

NOTE: Although we recognize it would be customary to invite the mayor of a city to participate in a convention, and we fully recognize the rights of LGBT individuals to employment and public life, we question the wisdom in this specific instance of inviting a person who has gained prominence for her sexuality, an issue which is highly controversial within the Girl Scouts and that runs counter to the values of many Girl Scout members.

Question: Are the Girl Scouts nominating Lisa Quiroz to join their board because of her financial support for the Empire State Pride Agenda, Inc., a New York LGBT organization that was one of the largest donors to Governor Cuomo who pushed the same-sex marriage bill through the New York legislature? (Lisa also works for Time Warner which supports same-sex marriage.)

Question: Is GSUSA deliberately creating a corporate culture of people who are passionate about advancing LGBT rights?

Question: Why do the GSUSA biographies of their chief officers and board members omit their history of activism in LGBT causes?

Question: Does GSUSA have anyone in their leadership who is prominent in promoting marriage between a man and a woman?

Question: Since GSUSA’s policy doesn’t permit “the advocacy or promotion of a personal lifestyle or sexual preference,” why does their Journey book “Your Voice, Your World: The Power of Advocacy” promote as one of the “Voices for Good,” Martina Navratilova who was honored not just for being the world’s top female tennis player, but also for being “an activist for gay rights” and setting “a milestone for gay rights with her openness and her sexual orientation.”

Question: Is it just a coincidence that the Girl Scout Journey book “Your Voice, Your World: The Power of Advocacy” also list as “Voices for Good” a number of women who are either lesbians or who are advocates for lesbian rights? Click here to see the list.

Question: When establishing GSUSA’s new policy that instructs Girl Scout councils to allow boys who are presented by their families as girls to become Girl Scouts, did GSUSA consider the impact this may have on Girl Scouts who may be uncomfortable being required to pretend that a boy is a girl?

Question: How will Girl Scout troops handle the concerns that girls and parents may have regarding Girl Scout sleep-overs and campouts that may now include boys who identify as girls but that still have their male body parts?

Question: Is GSUSA unaware that many health professionals believe that affirming a child as the opposite gender (which their new policy requiring that boys be accepted as “Girl” Scouts will do) can prevent children from getting needed treatment for a recognized psychological disorder called “Gender Identity Disorder?”

Question: Why would the Girl Scout's “Global Explorer” scholarship application ask a Girl Scout if they are male, female, or transgender?

Click here to see the application.

====


Do you see where this is going and why there is a push to FORCE BSA to let there be openly gay leaders?

-t

----------


## phill4paul

> Do you see where this is going and why there is a push to FORCE BSA to let there be openly gay leaders?
> 
> -t


  Sure. Best just to let the perverts create the Gay Scouts of America. The G.S.A. Oh, wait...they can't. Boy Scouts of America have a Congressional charter. You can only use scouts in your name (officially with all the governmental benefits and such) if you are sanctioned by the BSA.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> Sure. Best just to let the perverts create the Gay Scouts of America. The G.S.A. Oh, wait...they can't. Boy Scouts of America have a Congressional charter. You can only use scouts in your name (officially *with all the governmental benefits and such*) if you are sanctioned by the BSA.


DId you catch this part of post 333?


*Boy Scouts begin their decay*
http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Arti...eir-decay.html

If you check the BSA Website in “How Scouting is Funded” http://www.scouting.org/About/FactSheets/Funding.aspx

You see Contributions from the United Way listed there but not direct funding from the Federal Government.  So the Pressure was not from funding. However *there were threats to bar them from using Federal lands* if they did not allow Gays to join.  We assume it will be alright for Gays to use these lands to promote their agenda but not the Boy Scouts.

*There have been concessions in the past for the Scouts to receive some Government Surplus for camping ETC.* *There was a threat to take this concession away*

How about this part?

*Senator Introduces Bill to Revoke Boy Scout’s Tax-Exempt Status*
http://politicker.com/2013/05/senato...exempt-status/
*(It's not what you think.  They want to FORCE BSA to accept openly gay adult leaders)*


-t

----------


## phill4paul

> DId you catch this part of post 333?
> 
> 
> *Boy Scouts begin their decay*
> http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Arti...eir-decay.html
> 
> If you check the BSA Website in “How Scouting is Funded” http://www.scouting.org/About/FactSheets/Funding.aspx
> 
> You see Contributions from the United Way listed there but not direct funding from the Federal Government.  So the Pressure was not from funding. However *there were threats to bar them from using Federal lands* if they did not allow Gays to join.  We assume it will be alright for Gays to use these lands to promote their agenda but not the Boy Scouts.
> ...


 Lie with dogs awake with fleas.......

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/bsa.html

  If you want a private organization than be one.

----------


## Don Lapre

> My brother was in scouts. I went to his awards ceremonies and the pinewood derby -- the vast majority of the boys there were under 13. Of course there were a few high school guys that stuck with it, everyone was there to have a good time doing scouts stuff with their guy friends. Sexuality wasn't a subject of concern. With that, I don't see why the anti-gay people are making a big deal out of allowing gay scouts nor can I see why the gay community should make a big deal out of making BSA allow openly gay scouts.
> 
> Even when I did baton twirling in middle and high school, no one talked about their relationships or sexual orientation. You went to practices and performances with focus on twirling. If someone said they were gay no one would be kicked out, no one would have suffered damage to their moral or religious values, and quite frankly, no one would have cared. 
> 
> Openly gay, not only gay, straight, asexual, etc. it shouldn't be a topic discussed or of concern in kid's activities.


Absolutely right.

----------


## Carlybee

Baptists plan exodus from Boy Scouts

http://www.click2houston.com/lifesty...z/-/index.html

----------


## Noob

> Baptists plan exodus from Boy Scouts
> 
> http://www.click2houston.com/lifesty...z/-/index.html



Southeast Christian Church is doing the same.

http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/05/...zwrRwU.twitter

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Well, I'm not so sure a generation of badgering, heckling, lawsuits and threats of legal action are what I would call "voluntary".
> 
> Not the biggest issue for me, Scouting comes out of the "progressive" era, and is much too focused on loyalty to the state.
> 
> *Scouting will probably go the way of most "mainstream" religions in another 20 years*.


Yeah, what I said.

----------


## donnay

> Yeah, what I said.


Good prediction.  The evil has ensconced itself in many organizations.  I believe that is the agenda.

----------


## brushfire

I've always wanted to join a sorority and live amongst young college women.

Look out sisters, this middle aged white male is about to make his college dreams come true!   ..and if you dont let me in, I'll sue your fking asses.

...with liberty and justice, for all!

----------

