Tolstoy -That is easy to claim, with no evidence. Here
are a few observations:Criminals tend to be big liars.Those males who sexually abuse young males usually don't abuse young
females, ie they have a specific interest in males. So they do have same sex
attraction.Those who seek an opportunity to sexually gratify
themselves with scouts, would not have that interest served by stating they are
interested in their same sex.Those who are caught in such criminal
activity, lie to help their cause, specifically by deflecting blame to the
heterosexual class, to protect those like themselves.Many of the
scouts are close to consent age, and may be viewed as recruits for the near
future, by those who have a sexual interest in them. (18 is arbitrary. People
don't suddenly become wise at 18. But they can be legally
'victimized' at 18.)Research is most often done to prove a
point, is funded by those wish to prove a certain point of view, and thus has an
inherent bias.I have an inherent bias, that children should be
protected first and foremost. I won't apologize for that, because it is the
right thing to do.
@4wordAs has been pointed out a hundred times already those that identify
as homosexual are statically less likely to abuse these boys then those that
identify as heterosexual and no matter how many times you reward the lie that
fact will not change.
George,I am glad you bring up victims. Victims are what the boy
scouts are trying to prevent. Protecting boys is priority 1 while
they participate in a great program that helps them grow up to be men. Because
of the camping and associated close quarters and secluded places, it make sense
to exclude leaders and members who would be sexually inclined toward these boys,
including women, homosexual males, and pedophiles.If they open the
door to one group, the others will be demanding they be let in too.Safety first and foremost. One boy molested is not a statistic, it is a
hardwareErda, Ut"I wouldn't want my son with gay
leaders. I am sorry. I am not homophobic but..."=========er uh, yes - you are.Here's the test for it -- "I wouldn't want my son with Black leaders. I am sorry. I am not
racist but...""I wouldn't want my son with Muslim leaders. I
am sorry. I am not a bigot but...""I wouldn't want my son
with Jewish leaders. I am sorry. I am not anti-sematic but...""I
wouldn't want my son with Hispanic leaders. I am sorry. I am not against
Mexicans but...""I wouldn't want my son with Women leaders. I
am sorry. I am not a Chauvenist but..."
" I am not homophobic but I believe diversity divides. "That
statement alone is what is making it hard for me to want to return to Utah. The
idea that diversity makes any group weaker is a failed notion. The most
powerful companies in the world thrive because of the diversity of their
employees. The church is enjoying growth around the world, through diversity.
God made this whole world, every nationality, every race.... not
just those that look and think like us.Just my opinion."sexuality" in any form doesn't belong in scouting.
@hardwareSo insisting your kids only associate with other kids that think
just like you is being inclusive?
Why do groups have to fold to meet the expectations of gay groups? Why do they
have to change their organizations to "include" them when in all
actuality it divides them? I wouldn't want my son with gay leaders. I am
sorry. I am not homophobic but I believe diversity divides. I want my kids with
other kids with the same values.
@VORtrying to claim victimhood at every turn is also trying to shut down
debate, but it does not seem to stop people from challenging you anyway does it.
2nd try. Will this comment get posted? Re:PatriotThere
are already rules that prohibit scout leaders from sharing a tent with scouts
who aren't their own children. My husband was a scout leader (several
years ago) and he couldn't share a tent with our son because scouts other
than our son would also be staying in the tent. There is no
scientific evidence that gay or bi-sexual adults are more likely to be
pedophiles. Many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an
adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.
@Patriot " The LDS church can and will DROP BSA unless they keep
their no-gay policy in tact. BSA can then attempt to stay afloat without their
largest sponsor... good luck with that. "so then just like last
night at this point may I suggest you try answering tolstoys question.
re:omni scentIt isn't about just allowing gay scouts - which
there most likely wouldn't be any...it is allowing gay scout masters. There
is no way the parents of scouts are going to allow their 12 year old son to go
into the back country with a homosexual man - possibly sharing a tent as well as
participating in swimming etc... Would you allow your son to sleep next to
someone who has a sexual attraction to other males? This is a completely
inappropriate association and all the political correctness liberals live by
isn't going to change it.
re:LDS LiberalIt doesn't matter what you are supposed to do or
not supposed to do as a leader - what matters is reality and the reality of
putting a 12 year old boy in the back country of the High Uinta Mountains with a
homosexual man is reality if BSA allows gay leaders and that my friend is called
an "inappropriate association" the same as having the young women share
a tent at girls camp with an adult male leader. If BSA allows in gays I 100%
guarantee you will have some sort of child molestation case to deal with down
the road - (like Jerry Sandusky of Notre Dame and his molestation of young boys
age 10-13 ). Homosexual men are sexually attracted to those of their same gender
and that isn't something you can control ...other than never to allow the
association in the first place. You also have to think of the normal male adult
leaders having to share sleeping quarters with a homosexual man and having been
a scout and explorer leader for 20 years that alone is something that would not
fly either. PC is usually always bad!!
@UtahBlueDevil: "We have members of the church who are gay, but not
practicing, that are allowed to participate in the church."This
is precisely where the line should be drawn. Men who have same-sex attraction
can still serve as proper role models by staying morally straight through
abstinence. Men who practice homosexual behavior should not be Scout leaders,
because they're not leading by example.
re:observatorLet me add point number 5 to your list. 5.
The LDS church can and will DROP BSA unless they keep their no-gay policy in
tact. BSA can then attempt to stay afloat without their largest sponsor... good
luck with that. ** BSA needs the LDS church much more than the LDS
church needs BSA
VSTBountiful, UTThat same Supreme Court also ruled in 2000
[Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640] that the Boy Scouts, and
all private organizations, have the constitutionally protected right under the
First Amendment of freedom of association to set membership standards.3:35 p.m. Feb. 21, 2013=========== That is right.They (BSA) is free to choose.i.e., no Government entity is
"forcing" the Boy Scouts to do anything, either way.It is an
internal matter, and will be decided on internally -- not by the gv'mnment,
or Obama, or any other strawman evil Socialist boogieman frenzy the right-wing
whips itself into blaming.========== Voice of Reason.Once again you are wrong.Marriage is about love and
committment, not about sex.I've been involved with the Boys Scouts
for over 40 years. We are never supposed to talk about 's-e-x' of any
kind...EVER with the boys! If even the very topic comes up (homo OR hetero) -
we are to report it immediately. Abuse is abuse - not matter what kind.
So this is a question that was posted on the thread yesterday on the exact same
subject that pretty much made the same argument but no one responded to the
question. maybe some here wants to take a crack at it. "On the surface this
seems like a fair question (request) but what is the difference between someone
demanding they change and someone demanding that they not change their beliefs?
either way you are trying to force them to adhere to your views instead of
It is interesting to read that many don't feel that an organizations
ability to not pay taxes isn't a form of subsidy. If I didn't have
to pay my mortgage, that would be a benefit to me. If a company didn't
need to pay certain bills, that wouldn't be a benefit. If BYU doesn't
make students pay their full cost based on their religion, that is not a
subsidy.Interesting.As to the BSA... my grandfather was
the one who brought the Scouting program to the church. While I never liked
scouting, I have a deep respect for it, and my sons have earned their eagles.
Creating a parallel organization just doesn't make sense to me. We have
members of the church who are gay, but not practicing, that are allowed to
participate in the church. Sexuality, in any way, needs to be out of
scouts. Even without gays, scouting has been plagued with abuse problems. This
is an abuse issue, not a gay issue. I don't care if people are gay or
not, I don't want either of those groups making any of that part of
@VORwhy do you ask the same questions that have been answered a hundred
times before? the state only has a right to intervene if there is a social harm
there is no social harm from gay marriage, however, as you all ready illustrated
there is a social harm from the other forms of relationships you sight. Asking
the same question or trying to make the same false argument 101 times is not
going to change the outcome. your same arguments have failed across the board
over and over again from these threads to the courts.
No one is forcing the Scouts to accept anybody. The Scout organization itself is
questioning its own policy because it is manifestly unfair--and well they
Wouldn't it just be a whole lot easier to just open your mind and quit
discrimating against kids who just want to fit in? As for funding, BSA gets
lots of subsidized funding through United Way, churches and other agencies.
Fortunately, many local United Way chapters have withdrawn funding because of
BSA's discriminitory practices. More groups, including churches, should be
shamed into withdrawing their taxpayer-subsidized support as well.
@VORBefore you go on and on about liberals and their slapping evil labels
and trying to shut down those people that disagree with them you may want to
read about what has been happening to the Mississippi newspaper the Laurel
Leader. YOu may also want to consider why it is that the DN has not run one
story about what is happening to that paper since it is so fond of running
numerous stories on any incident where anyone that apposes gay marriage gets
any backlash. I have said it before and I will say it again, you are not a
The question is not should gay boys and men be involved in scouting - they
already are. Almost every gay man I know who grew up in the US was a boy scout.
Many of them speak fondly of scouting and had great experiences. And many of
them recall knowing they were gay and worrying their secret would get out. I
know more than a few gay men who dropped out of boy scout because they were
afraid of what would happen if their fellow scouts found out they were gay.By banning openly gay boys and men from participating in scouting, BSA
encourages systemic dishonesty. They're saying "Be a boy scout, but
lie to us about who you are." Being told to be systematically and
consistently dishonest corrodes the soul. Lying in word and deed about who you
are is the opposite of the spirit of the boy scout oath. Consistent dishonesty
is the opposite of "morally straight."
This is a classic case of adults messing up something that was designed and
built for kids! Every demographic study shows that the acceptance of gay people
is lowest among those over 50 (around 60%) and highest among those under 30
(almost 70%). If adults back away, this issue will soon disappear.
@VORwhat is interesting is you continually want to make erroneous
comparisons to things (that by your own admission) have a known social harm and
gay marriage which has no proven social harm. I find it fascinating that five
years later you are still reverting back to the same old failed arguments (not
just here or by you but in the court of law and the court of public opinion)
over and over again. why is that?
Omniscent - So you'd be fine with government-sanctioned polygamy?
Interesting that you ignored my "desire" not to be a polygamist, but to
simply "marry" 30 other adults of mixed gender. So we can all have
government-sanctioned sex whenever we want. So we can all force government -
and by extension taxpayers - to support my lifestyle choice with special
protective laws recognizing our 30-person "marriage." Maybe
you wouldn't care about even that, but I've got news for you: most
people who support gay marriage would not support government-sanctioned
"marriage" involving a large number of adults who just want to sleep
with each other. In other words, gay marriage supporters have a line that even
they won't cross for marriage. To which I again pose the question: why?
If moral judgment can no longer decide what sexual relationships government will
sanction and support through law, then how can we tell ANY adults that their
"marriage" won't go?The truth is, the word
"marriage" loses all meaning under such conditions. The standard for
government-sanctioned marriage should be what system actually benefits society;
not whatever system politically influential people just want to do.
Simple solution:1. The BSA will allow all boys and all leaders who
are approved by any chartering organization to participate in Scouting.2.
The BSA will define "morally straight" to include prohibition of
extramarital relations, and to define marriage as "the legally recognized
union of two individuals who may, in principle, produce children without
assistance from a third party".3. By biological definition,
heterosexual unions may, in principle, produce children. Whether they actually
do is beside the point.4. The BSA can hold, as it has in the past, that
those who do not uphold the oath to be "morally straight", as defined,
will not participate in the organization.
Voice of Reason and Utes Fan - Thank you for articulating many of the excuses
that people like to use to justify their phopbias and exclude those who are
different. Welcome to America, the land of the fr.....oh wait a minute. As has
been stated so well by Curmudgeon, the Boy Scouts are wrestling with an issue
that might not be as noble and honorable as we all want to think. They're
worried about money! Which decision will help them most in that regard?I have to say that I, personally, choose not to be part of any
organization that looks down on other individuals or tries to make them less
that they are. If the Boy Scouts want to make the choice to continue excluding
gays from their rolls then they are free to do that. How's that for a
"liberal agenda"?Someday, hopefully, we will look at people
simply as children of God and treat them accordingly. And by the way Voice or
Reason, it is not a "fable that homosexuality is in any way even remotely
comparable to the civil rights struggle of blacks." It is every bit as
Amen Scott Soulier!!!The Boy Scouts have put in the hard work, been
honest about who they are, and what values they have and teach. If people
don't espouse those values, make your own group. Don't destroy someone
else's. Next thing you know these people will be telling
religions and political parties they have to change their values and practices.
Oh wait! They are already doing that.Well I am not
caving to your craving and raving!
Voice of ReasonLayton, UTPlease name anyone who is sitting in
jail for polygamy?FYI - Warren Jeffs and the like are sitting in
jail for child rape.
Doesn't "Gay Scouts" follow the old flawed "Seperate but
Equal" laws from the Segrated South -- from over 100 years ago?Conservatives just need a big old time machine - so they can all go back right
from where they came from.
Utes Fan: I don't know any liberals who say you can't make distincions
between minors and adults. And the scouts already do accommodate those with
physical disibilities. My troop back in the 90's had an Eagle Scout in a
wheelchair.As for merging with the girl scouts, let's face it: it
would not be practical. I can't really see that same argument for gay
scouts not based in unrational fear.
Voice of Reason: a marrage is a legal agreement between two people.
Refrigerators and animals have never been able to enter into any legal
contract.Plural marriage I'm actually okay with, as long as all
parties are in agreement, and all willing and able to enter into that agreement.
That would even fit the "historic definition" of marrage as expressed in
the bible, not to mention Utah history. There, I'm not doing anything
bigoted and hateful to you or your potential spouses.However, your
arguments lack reason, and have done nothing to persuade me there is no
difference between homosexuality and the civil rights movement.
@omni scent"I don't think anyone wants to create a "Gay
Scouts", rather a scouting organization that is all-inclusive."----------So, in other words, the boy scouts should accept girls -
because according to the liberal agenda, they can't have gender
discrimination. And the girl scouts should accept boys. Not to mention, that
boys older than 18 would have to be accepted - because the liberal agenda
excludes age discrimination. So, they would have to include 70 year old men and
women. Also, since the boy scouts have physical requirements then they would
have to change those requirements to accommodate those with physical
disabilities because the liberal agenda prevents this. In fact, they would have
to eliminate camping, swimming, hiking, etc. This sounds like an
organization that accepts everybody, but cannot do anything. Just what the
I think society can become more inclusive to gay people without having to
suddenly let people marry major appliances. We've done it before. We can
do it again.
Let's put to bed once and for all the fable that homosexuality is in any
way even remotely comparable to the civil rights struggle of blacks. This is a
comparison that is desperately pushed by gay activists because it muzzles actual
debate, and manipulates people into not using their brains in considering gay
marriage by just slapping evil labels on people that are opposite of their real
hearts ("bigot", "hateful", etc.)So preserving
traditional marriage under the law is somehow the same as the Jim Crow
"separate but equal". Okay. So that means it's also "separate
but equal" to not recognize polygamist marriages, group marriages, marriages
to refrigerators & animals...ridiculous, you say? I agree; now you tell me
why. But wait, you can't...doing so would be bigoted and hateful! How
dare you refuse my joint marriage to thirty men & women!Still
absurd? Fine, make your argument, and I promise not to call you a bigot. But
also let me make mine without cynical labels designed to muzzle free speech and
skip over the use of brains with hot-button labels.
Omni Scent: The dilemma the BSA is wrestling with is the possibility that by
becoming "all-inclusive" the organization may lose the sponsorship and
membership of many who do not wish to be associated with an organization that
accepts openly gay men or boys, whether that is right or wrong. It would be
ironic indeed if the BSA became less inclusive in practice by adopting a policy
of broad inclusion.And speaking of inclusion, why is no one
clamoring for merger of the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts?
Charity for profit is not charity.
Sort of like what the Nazis did in Germany. They put a star on those they
wanted to target for their hate. The notion of separation of
Americans by state, religion, race, and for what ever other reason, is not in
compliance with the American creed of “One Nation Indivisable, With
Justice for All”.I think the benefits of Scouting are
desirable and needed by every boy in America, regardless of the other
affiliations he may have. And they tend to bring America together rather than
I don't think anyone wants to create a "Gay Scouts", rather a
scouting organization that is all-inclusive. After all, the Supreme Court has
told us that "Seperate but Equal is inherently unequal"
Mike, you ask who the government has helped get off welfare in the past 8 years?
Me. I was on unemployment for almost 3 months after the 2008 recession hit.
Without that welfare I wouldn't have been able to pay my health insurance
for a pre-existing condition. Without COBRA laws frok the government, I
wouldn't even have had the ability to keep my insurance after getting laid
off. Thanks to that help, I was able to look for a job instead of fretting
about insurance and my health. I found a good job quickly. I'm anet
positive tax payer, having paid back more then what I took from the system, and
I am happy to do so. No man is an island, we all need each others help from time
to time, and I am happy to contribute my part.
The problem with Mr. Soulier's reasoning is his assumption that the people
who "donate their hard-earned money, their precious time, talents and
anything else" or who "purchase land for camps" and develop
handbooks or build their own buildings and pay "full-time executives and
recruit an army of volunteers" are exclusively not gay. Just like the
military and professions from every walk of life, gay people have served and
performed in those organizations for as long as they have been organized, but
they have done it while hiding their sexual orientation because of social
pressure. I lived and worked in the Salt Lake Valley for the first 12 years of
my professional career and in my line of work I had significant interaction with
gay people. I think most residents of Salt Lake would be somewhat surprised by
the size of Salt Lake/Utah's gay community. And all this time they have
been doing the same things other cisitzens have been doing, including joining
and serving the Boy Scouts.Mr. Sourier and others can promote a
separate Gay BSA but I hope they won't be surprised when the "Non Gay
BSA" starts to lose members.
to liberals like isrred, unless the government decides to take a big chunk out
of something in taxes, then it is "heavily subsidized".So
when I choose to give $100 to the Red Cross for disaster relief (after I paid
about $60 in taxes on $160 earned to leave me with that $100), the fact that the
government does not take another $30 or so bite out of my donation before it
reaches the victims makes the Red Cross a heavily subsidized organization that
is getting a free ride on the taxpayer dime.Did I get that right?
isrredyes, they did.
"Tax-exempt" does not mean "publicly funded". If the government
wants to replace every charitable organization with a tax-payer funded charity,
let them try. Does anyone really think that with the government's
overhead, any tax-payer public "charity" would ever succeed? Just look
at how many people government has helped to get out of welfare in the last
eighty years. Good people all over the nation volunteer their time,
their money and their resources to help boys become men. Unfortunately, a very
small percentage of the population thinks that they have the right to change
anything that doesn't allow them total access to our youth.
"But do it on your own dime"Seriously? The BSA and its
largest promoters (LDS Church, Methodist Churches, etc) are some of the most tax
exempt and thereby heavily subsidized organizations in the country. The BSA,
nor its main supporters, definitely did not build it "on their own