Comments about ‘President Obama says Boy Scouts should allow gays as members (+video)’

Best reason to vote against anything is if Obama is for it.

What factual benefit is there to deny gay Americans into the boy scouts?

All reports of child abuse have happened WITH the ban in place. So to claim that any gay Americans will abuse children has been factually proven false.

Obama is being a leader in this case.

Something majority of Americans elected him, to do.

Obama is right about that.

Why is it that I'm never dissappointed in the hopes that a politician will actually stand up for something that will support principles found within our constitution or God's laws, such as what it means to be 'morally straight.' A drifting, leaderless America that doesn't understand the difference between tolerance, diversity, or bigotry. The bully pulpit is aptly named here.

It's time for lines to be drawn in the sand. Where does this stop? Which other charitable, non-profit organizations will be forced to change their belief systems to comply with the irreligious wishes of minority interests. All Churches should be on high alert if this President forces the BSA to comply with actions that are against our principles.

Rather than listening to thousands of years of history which prove that marriage is an essential institution for a strong society, the left-wing has sought to bedazzle itself with its own theories. These poppycockish theories are decidedly anti-marriage, and are decidedly wrong.

But that is what the left wants: the destruction of marriage and family. Then, the population will have no one to turn to but the government, which in turn gives the left more power.

Obama's attack on scouting is simply an attack on traditional marriage and family. The general public must see it for what it is, and resist it.

Pagan:

"All reports of child abuse have happened WITH the ban in place. So to claim that any gay Americans will abuse children has been factually proven false"

Fact: 100% of men that have abused boys are homosexuals(or at the least bisexuals).

Yes, the majority of gays are good people.

Safety is the #1 priority for these kids.

If someone potentially is attracted to the boys, we need to just take all precautions to protect them.

It's not meant to discriminate, just PROTECT

Re: bandersen

Please show me where in the Constitution it says "Gay and lesbian people shall not be allowed to join organizations."

Re: markmongie

The BSA is not a charitable or non-profit organization. Also, the support for gay equality is over 50% nationwide. So who's in the minority?

I'm all for religious freedom and I don't mind someone making an argument on the other side of this issue. Just be intelligent about it and leave the lies and hyperbole out.

I have been a Scout leader in various capacities for the last 20 years, and I have always held the opinion that gays should be permitted in Scouting with full privileges as leaders and Scouts. The only logistical logjam that still needs a workable resolution is what to do with the boys on camp-outs. If we are honest, a gay boy's attractions are just as real and powerful as boy-to-girl or girl-to-boy. There is a reason why we would never have a girl tent with boys, or a boy tent with girls (yes, even if the girls did not return the attraction, or if they all swore they weren't attracted to each other.) As for leaders, I've never understood the hesitation, since two leaders must always be present. Those checks-and-balances are already in place.

Missing the most important point in all this discussion: the homosexual lifestyle is not a lifestyle to hold up before impressionable young men. Sin is still sin! Exemplary leaders need to be chosen to impact our youth. Homosexuality has no place in positions where role models are sorely needed!!

@banderson
You're the one who thinks Obama doesn't have the right to voice a differing opinion. He's not forcing anything on the Boy Scouts. He was asked his opinion and he gave it.

claudio, where did I say that 'Gay and Lesbian people shall not be allowed to join organizations?' What I did say is my desire for all people to abide by the Constitution and God's law. How did you make that leap and misquote? In the absence of abiding by God's laws, perhaps they at least could acknowledge the right of all citizens to to live under the constitution, for which I find nothing to support the idea of forcing a private entity to accept as members whose actions are in conflict with their stated purpose, which in this case is to be 'morally straight'

They should admit boys and leaders who have same-sex attraction (SSA), but who are committed to being chaste (no sex outside of heterosexual marriage) and to not promoting homosexual behavior. There are also a certain number of happily married SSA men with wives which men should be considered for service who will not promote or engage in homosexual behavior with anybody ever. I'm an Eagle Scout with SSA. I will be married to a woman someday with full disclosure before I propose. I have never had sex with anybody and will not with anybody except my future wife. I should be eligible to serve in scouting if needed.

Not allowing homosexuals into the BSA is blatant discrimination. Teaching tolerance and equality to our young boys is more important than sheltering them from an imaginary threat.

Banderson,

The quote was given to make a point. There is nothing in the Constitution that has to do with sexual orientation. I don't know where you believe the Constitution has any place in this argument. That was the point. It's hard to understand sarcasm in plain writing sometimes. No reason to get ornery.

No public entity is forcing a private entity to do anything in this case. In fact, the public entity (SCOTUS) has upheld the private entity's right to do whatever it wants on this issue. The president was asked his opinion. Just because it wasn't in agreement with yours doesn't make it invalid, nor does it make the leap to being a public entity forcing anyone to do anything. You're free to disagree with him.

Also, as has already been stated multiple times on these threads, the term "morally straight" does not apply to sexual orientation. A person can be gay and not be immoral. The LDS Church has said so repeatedly.

Finally, no one has a right to live under the Constitution. It's a privilege.

Obama doesn't make decisions for the Boy Scouts.

Claudio,
no one has a right to live under the constitution? Where do you come up with that? Many of the founders fought against including a bill of rights because they argued only those rights so listed would be the rights guaranteed. They, and those who favored a bill of rights, KNEW those rights were inherent in man. Your comment is typical of lib thought, that only the government can give rights. How utterly wrong you are.

The BSA should not discriminate against boys, unless any boy is advocating sexual activity (homosexual or heterosexual) prior to marriage. Please note this is not practicing discrimination, only insisting on adherence to the Scout Law and Oath.

With regard to leaders, Father Bernard Groeschel of Larchmont, New York, the Catholic Church's expert on abuse in the Catholic Church, says that 90 percent of the abuse by Catholic priests was done by homosexuals who constituted 10 percent of the Catholic clergy. That means that homosexual priests abuse children 81 times as frequently as heterosexual priests! The BSA should retain current policy on adult leaders, unless they wish to have their endowments shrink as have the Catholic Church's as a result of abuse litigation.

It would be a bad idea. In theory it works, but there are predators lurking at the margins who would do to scouting what they have done to diversity and tolerance. They will give it such a bad name that no one who believes in scouting values will want to associated with the scouts anymore.

Lost,

The Constitution isn't made up of inherent rights. My comment expressed the need for people to recognize that they are not entitled to citizenship, they must earn it. Our men and women in the military know that all too well. Freedom isn't free, as the old saying goes. Nowhere, however, do I state that the government gives rights. In fact, if you would have bothered to read my comments you would have seen that I endorsed natural rights.

As is typical with you, you turn a well-meaning, common sense comment into an attack on the Constitution and freedom. I still don't understand the need for name calling and the disrespect you consistently show in your comments.

At any rate, we're off the topic. As I stated earlier, this issue has nothing to do with the Constitution.