Teenage Boy Scout Denied Eagle Scout Because He's Gay

Originally posted by Juggernog

Originally posted by Annee

Then why is the Secret 11 hiding?

I really dont know annee, I havent been following this thread that closely, I just thought I would add my opinion.
Im not looking for an argument or debate.
thanks

OK. I just generally focus on a single main issue.

Years ago it was East Timor. Currently it is the gay issue and Equality.

So - - I do follow all aspects of it - - from as many sources as I can.

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
I was just mentioning outdated belief systems in another thread. Anyone who objectively views the situation will realize that being gay or straight is NOT a choice. With the majority of gay guys, it is obvious from when they are little kids. I have seen this firsthand with a cousin of mine too.

Yeah - - my best friend in high school had a son. You could tell before he was 4 years old.

He was just different. Gave off a different vibe. He was not and is not an "effeminate gay".

This was before I knew any gay people and I could tell he was gay. You could just tell.

End The Boy Scout Bullying

September 27th, 2012 - Connie Schultz

There was a time, many years ago, when the Boy Scouts of America took a courageous stand in the face of bigotry.

For years, the Scouts had awarded a badge of honor bearing a swastika. It was called the Thanks Badge, meant to reward kindness. For centuries, the swastika was known only as an ancient symbol of well-being.

Then, in 1933, Adolf Hitler co-opted the swastika, declaring it the official Nazi symbol. The next year, the Boys Scouts dropped the swastika from their badge. In 1936, the Scouts announced that anyone who had been awarded the old badge could swap it for the new one.

I first wrote about this in 2002, praising the Scouts’ willingness to change, in contrast to those Americans who still insisted on displaying the Confederate flag, forever a symbol of one of the ugliest periods in U.S. history.

How I wish the Boy Scouts of America’s leadership of today could summon the same courage, the same commitment to justice.

Two years ago, under public pressure, the BSA assembled a committee of 11 “volunteers and professional leaders” to examine its policy of barring open gay Scouts and gay or lesbian adults from serving as leaders. In July of this year, the Scouts’ executive committee announced that this committee had affirmed this practice of discrimination.

The Scouts refused to disclose details about the process or the names of those who served on the committee. Think of it as the Boy Scouts version of a super PAC: You can promote bigotry, without fear of anyone’s knowing your name.

In a news release, BSA insisted that its policy to exclude gay boys and adults “reflects the beliefs and perspectives” of the organization.

www.nationalmemo.com...

Originally posted by EarthCitizen23
reply to post by Juggernog

 

Actually it worked out very well,, go look and see how Chick Fil a has made an about face.

So,, FAIL on your part.

Dan Cathy Reaffirms Chick-fil-A Supports ‘Biblical Families’

Thursday, October 04, 2012
www.cbn.com...

Despite criticism and even threats to ban his restaurant in some areas, Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy is sticking to his support for traditional family.

Deny ignorance. So FAIL on your part.

Really can't blame you. I imagine MSM didn't break their necks reporting this story.

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady

Despite criticism and even threats to ban his restaurant in some areas, Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy is sticking to his support for traditional family.

Deny ignorance. So FAIL on your part.

I'm sure the franchise owners who are not discriminatory - - love him. NOT!

And I will continue to boycott and inform everyone I know about Chick-fil-A.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
The boy's choice doesn't effect me personally, no

You say this, and then you say this:

Yes. I believe it should be a factor because the BSA openly states

You once again hide behind the Boyscouts as an excuse. You admit that his sexuality doesn't effect your life or the lives of his peers, it doesn't appear to be an issue, yet you still believe his sexuality should have been a factor. I already told you, we're not concerned with the position of the BSA as we already know their position on the matter and their legal rights, we're concerned with your position. Do you think him being gays should have been a factor to him earning that award personally? If you had your own boyscouts, would you enforce the same law against gays as they would??

I believe in the organizations right to set their own terms. And I did already answer your question. I will quote from that very same post:

If your asking if I were to re-make the Scouts would I then allow Gays and Atheists? I think it's great that there is an organization that sets such high moral and ethical standards. I would do exactly what the Scouts do do now - they have a program with these standards - And they have a program where gays and atheists Are indeed welcome. They cater to both types of groups which I think is smart. http//www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread888257/pg11#pid15104941

I would have two programs, with each criteria. I believe that is the most fair. Everyone gets what they want. Why is this more fair than lumping them together? There are people who wont want gays in their group. There are gays that don't want to be subject to condemnation from a group of straight boys. Children as you know can be very cruel, unlike rational thinking adults. I believe this would cut down on many of the problems these children will face, which would be better for all concerned. It's not enough to simply say " But you have to lump them together to teach gay tolerance" 1st off - no, you don't. Parents of children who have strong religious beliefs wont stand for that and you cannot expect children to accept that and act accordingly - they simply won't do it. What do you do in the case of a gay boy coercing a straight boy (confused as they are at that age about their sexuality) - into having physical relations with that gay boy - or vice versa. That's not fair to anyone. Children should not have to be subjected to issues of sex at that age, especially from such an organization as a scouting outfit. It's not their job, purpose, not or they equipped to handle the psychological needs of the children in those circumstances.

This also answers Annee's question on separate but equal.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix


I would have two programs, with each criteria. I believe that is the most fair.

Fair?

It is not fair. It is divisive and discriminatory.

Do you support separate drinking fountains for Whites and Blacks too?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Juggernog

Originally posted by Annee

Then why is the Secret 11 hiding?

I really dont know annee, I havent been following this thread that closely, I just thought I would add my opinion.
Im not looking for an argument or debate.
thanks

OK. I just generally focus on a single main issue.

Years ago it was East Timor. Currently it is the gay issue and Equality.

So - - I do follow all aspects of it - - from as many sources as I can.

I tend to bounce around issues but I usually focus on conspiracy and "police state" type threads...
Anyway, Ive seen your posts in different threads and I maybe dont agree with alot of them, you do make some decent points "occasionally"
Peace

Originally posted by Juggernog

I tend to bounce around issues but I usually focus on conspiracy and "police state" type threads...
Anyway, Ive seen your posts in different threads and I maybe dont agree with alot of them, you do make some decent points "occasionally"

Peace

LOL - - I try to be consistent on this issue.

On other issues - - I will mostly use "qualifiers" - such as: "I think" - - "IMO" - - or present it in a question form.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
I believe in the organizations right to set their own terms.

This wasn't the question of whether the organization has the right, this wasn't the question of the OP. Why you keep hiding behind this excuse is really beyond me.

And I did already answer your question.

No you didn't. You just told me that the kid being gay would not affect your life personally, you didn't answer my question as to whether you'd refuse to award this kid based purely on his sexuality on a personal level.

You know what? I think that on a personal level, even if you ran this organization, you still wouldn't award this kid because of his sexuality. You personally agree with this stance of this organization, you just refuse to state it clearly because you know it's not an easy position to defend.

Originally posted by Annee
It is not fair. It is divisive and discriminatory.

Do you support separate drinking fountains for Whites and Blacks too?

In the example we're discussing, the "discrimination" is entirely up to the person who wishes to sign up to it.

But if some people had to go out of their way to voluntarily sign up to an organisation, knowing in advance that the drinking fountains were separate, and being able to walk away from this situation any time they chose, then I think it is perfectly all right.

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady



Actually again,

FAIL on your part,, BackLash about "CAVE IN"

The company will NO Longer push Anti-Gay Agenda,,,, but just cook good Chicken sandwich. They still are a ''Christian" owned business but Know that they will loose money if they are perceived as anti-gay in regions other than the South where I live and am gay and Pagan,,, and I Love Them,, breakfast every morning. The women there know me well, treat me wonderful,, and one is a Lesbian.
Is it so hard for Christians to come off their high horse? I don't think so, many do.

Anyway, it worked enough for me,, and looks like I was right after all,, they did CHANGE THEIR POLICY OF WERE THEY SPEND PROFIT MONEY and it will No Longer go to Anti Gay Organizations.

That should be good in anyones book.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Annee
It is not fair. It is divisive and discriminatory.

Do you support separate drinking fountains for Whites and Blacks too?

In the example we're discussing, the "discrimination" is entirely up to the person who wishes to sign up to it.

But if some people had to go out of their way to voluntarily sign up to an organisation, knowing in advance that the drinking fountains were separate, and being able to walk away from this situation any time they chose, then I think it is perfectly all right.

And once again, to dispel this relevant point, false representation of the facts has been offered.

The kid has been in the BSA for a long time. He didn't always know he was gay. So, he's worked so many years to get where he is, discovers that he's gay along the way, then he's refused the same qualification as all of his peers simply because he is gay.

He didn't choose to be gay (lets not go down that retarded debate again) and he has worked to achieve this for many years.

Do you think kids signing up to join the BSA should sign a contract stating that they will never be gay? How do you think a little kid is supposed to be able to look into the future and make such a decision? And when that kid does figure out they are gay, they are forced to make a choice, they either shut up and comply, living in secret at the behest of a religiously insane group of bigots, or they come out and then lose everything they've worked for, treated like a criminal and less than worthy of recognition.

Any way you look at this, a sane person will say that this is discrimination and it is wrong. The only people who believe this is right are homophobes, and most of them are too pathetically weak to admit it.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by otherpotato
If he states he is gay and admits he doesn't believe in god . .

He never said he did not believe in god. He does believe in a higher power.

The BSA is manipulating "Duty to God" as not being gay.

I thought I read he wouldn't accept the "Duty to God" part either? I of course believe belief in a higher power is the same thing but I thought that was part of the issue.

That still doesn't negate the awesomeness of becoming your own person despite influence to the contrary. He sounds like he has a good future ahead of him for standing up for himself. That's what I take away from this.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by dayve


Not Happening Dude. I am a gun toting, pagan Southern Red Neck Homo American and proud of it. I also stand up for my more ''sissyfied' brothers and butch sisters,, so give it up,,,

as the saying goes,,

Were Here, We're Queer Get USED TO IT. We Ain't going away.

Originally posted by otherpotato

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by otherpotato
If he states he is gay and admits he doesn't believe in god . .

He never said he did not believe in god. He does believe in a higher power.

The BSA is manipulating "Duty to God" as not being gay.

I thought I read he wouldn't accept the "Duty to God" part either? I of course believe belief in a higher power is the same thing but I thought that was part of the issue.

I've read several versions of this.

It is my opinion - - - that the BSA is twisting it to suit their position.

Their meaning - - - "Duty to God" - - means you can't be gay. Ryan is saying he is gay and that its OK to be gay.

Ryan does believe in God. He does believe in a higher power.

The bigotry on this site lately is really starting to disgust me.

People hiding behind their computer screens spewing hate. I pity you all.