Boy Scouts to Admit Openly Gay Youths

reply to post by Echo3Foxtrot


Even the Scouts cave to financial terrorism eventually. Over 15 years of relentless, no stop attack and undermining through pressure against everyone the BSA even remotely works with for meetings and basic logistics finally took their toll, I guess.

It did take many many sustained years of it, to be sure....but everyone has their limit and price. Whichever it was the BSA came to first, they hit it alright.

I'd say it's people power in action..but when driven by under 5% of the U.S. population and done with no concern for degree of damage inflicted to normal people in the efforts? Well... Economic terrorism is the term I will use.

reply to post by smyleegrl


This should be illegal.

Whats the age of these Children? Does this apply to Cub Scouts too?

The problem with this is these are CHILDREN who are Not yet at the age of accountability and in the state for legal consent for SEX. Homosexuality is all about one person "loving" and having sex with another member of the same sex.

How can they allow this in the Boy Scouts group when these children are not even of the legal age of consent?

You people can say what you want to but this WILl PROMOTE Homosexuality to other CHILDREN who are also Not of legal age of consent. This is Very BAD and anyone who can't see this needs to have their head examined. Gay Scout Masters will take advantage of these boys. Mark my words. This is creating a Monster of a much bigger problem than we have now.

If it is Legal in the state for a young man to have sex or this type of consensual relationship with another young man at a certain age and the Scouts Only allow those boys of this legal age into the group and disallow younger boys then I'd have no problem with it.. but those conditions it looks like are not being discussed.

reply to post by MuzzleBreak

So long as they do not allow homosexual scout masters, shouldn't be a problem.

Come on!!

It won't be long until that happens. All it will take is one troop with 5-6 gay scouts and they'll demand a gay scout master. Of course BSA will cave again. Once you open that door it can never be closed.

For those who pushed for the corruption of our youth by interjecting sex into a kids group, bravo!! I hope you're proud of yourselves!

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Echo3Foxtrot

 

Even the Scouts cave to financial terrorism eventually. Over 15 years of relentless, no stop attack and undermining through pressure against everyone the BSA even remotely works with for meetings and basic logistics finally took their toll, I guess.

It did take many many sustained years of it, to be sure....but everyone has their limit and price. Whichever it was the BSA came to first, they hit it alright.

I'd say it's people power in action..but when driven by under 5% of the U.S. population and done with no concern for degree of damage inflicted to normal people in the efforts? Well... Economic terrorism is the term I will use.

edit on 28-5-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

Free market in action, eh?

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


When a Super-Minority can literally come to dictate terms by force to national level organizations? No... That isn't free market anything. That is tyranny of the few upon the many. Personally, I'm about as sick and tired of that approach to 'change' some people just HAVE to have and have to have it now now now (waaa!) as one Bunny can get.

God help anyone who takes a stand against the wrong cause or group, even protected by the high court (which this was, by specific ruling) and even as a 100% private organization. If you have anything to lose? They WILL NEVER STOP coming to take it and/or destroy it until you have submitted in full to the will of the few. It's a warped nightmare of how the American Republic was intended to work, frankly.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

When a Super-Minority can literally come to dictate terms by force to national level organizations? No... That isn't free market anything. That is tyranny of the few upon the many. Personally, I'm about as sick and tired of that approach to 'change' some people just HAVE to have and have to have it now now now (waaa!) as one Bunny can get.

God help anyone who takes a stand against the wrong cause or group, even protected by the high court (which this was, by specific ruling) and even as a 100% private organization. If you have anything to lose? They WILL NEVER STOP coming to take it and/or destroy it until you have submitted in full to the will of the few. It's a warped nightmare of how the American Republic was intended to work, frankly.

The problem with your logic is that a Super-Minority could not illicit that kind of change in a free market society without help. That is how boycotts work. It doesn't matter if it is protected by the high court. It doesn't matter that is a 100% private organization. They did not have to change. They could have continued doing exactly what it was that they were doing, but they made the CHOICE to do so because of pressures placed on them by the Free Market.

Wait, so they allow Gay Scout Masters?

Sorry, but as a past victim of abuse, I would be wary about any man with homosexual leanings being left in charge alone with a bunch of young males.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

When a Super-Minority can literally come to dictate terms by force to national level organizations? No... That isn't free market anything. That is tyranny of the few upon the many. Personally, I'm about as sick and tired of that approach to 'change' some people just HAVE to have and have to have it now now now (waaa!) as one Bunny can get.

God help anyone who takes a stand against the wrong cause or group, even protected by the high court (which this was, by specific ruling) and even as a 100% private organization. If you have anything to lose? They WILL NEVER STOP coming to take it and/or destroy it until you have submitted in full to the will of the few. It's a warped nightmare of how the American Republic was intended to work, frankly.

It's not a super-minority when more and more of the population want to see gays included in our society, instead of excluded.

www.people-press.org...

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

God help anyone who takes a stand against the wrong cause or group, even protected by the high court (which this was, by specific ruling) and even as a 100% private organization. If you have anything to lose? They WILL NEVER STOP coming to take it and/or destroy it until you have submitted in full to the will of the few. It's a warped nightmare of how the American Republic was intended to work, frankly.

These are the strong-arm tactics of community agitators like Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Obama, etc. This is the new formula for jamming things down our throats. They presume most will cave under the pressure and in most cases they do. It’s disgusting that companies allow themselves to be bullied like that. If I was the president of BSA I would have told them exactly where they can go…

My kids won’t be in the Scouts now; that’s a shame.

reply to post by smyleegrl

IMO, this is good news and long overdue. I'm sure there will be a backlash from the conservative groups, and that is understandable. My guess is those who disagree might form their own version of Boy Scouts which does not allow homosexuals to join. That is their right, of course.

Is it not possible that the view of allowing gays to join is, in itself, 'forming one's own version', considering that it was never a part of the thing to begin with?

Like so many, many things, this subject has been entirely politicized. It isn't about what is right or wrong from either side. Your inclusion of the term 'conservative' defines this to crystal clarity.

And as this is about opinions, mine is that children should not be dragged into the politics of sexuality. When they are young, they are boys and girls; end of story.

It is unfortunate that people have to be stamped and identified to begin with, much less so young and then used as polarizing partisan bludgeons for the sake of grown adults who don't have better things to do.

Children are not tools. When they grow up to adulthood, then they can choose their paths in life... and if they're lucky, they won't have liberals or conservatives or gays or straights or a green fungus from Mars sniffing their bedsheets.

Cheers

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


I'm sorry but you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of a difference of terms. Boycott is a temporary effort made against a business or group to bring about political or policy change.

15 YEARS OF IT is not a boycott, it's economic terrorism. I didn't understand myself just HOW long, HOW deep and how VICIOUS this fight against the BSA has been for soooo many years, non stop, until getting into this to learn last night for this and another thread. It's atrocious.

If a minority *NEEDS* these tactics and *NEEDS* national support just to tread water and survive as a functional group? (As it seems to be claimed at times), then perhaps they need to look at THEMSELVES for just why and how they are a super minority among the population and stop acting like they are 90%, dealing with the few stragglers for intelligence left in the world.

The attitude is as outright offensive and purely counter-productive to the 'cause' as the fanatic and frankly, sick levels of obsessive action we see taken against targets of them.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Included in society, yes. Steamrolling the rights of private organizations? No. This wasn't ease to change. This was losing court fight after court fight (Up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court) and turning to guerrilla tactics of intimidation and destruction by attrition when all LEGAL means failed. In this case, the Gay Community showed everything for tactics they should be deeply ashamed of and whatever lesson it taught the kids? They ought to make fine little activists to carry on the tradition later.

They sure saw it up close for outright viciousness.

As I said. Tyranny of the few upon the many. It's just as ugly and just as wrong as Tyranny of one.

reply to post by kaylaluv

Ahhh, I see. You are getting hung up on the "openly gay" part. So you don't have a problem with gay boy scouts. Well, that's a good start.

Quite correct, I have no problem at all with people being gay or doing anything that other people do. I have gay friends, I have a gay couple who are friends of mine that stay a week at my house over the spring and fall every year, we go out and have a blast together, I support gay people having the same rights under government that hedrosexual people have and don't begrudge anyone for their personal choices.

Openly gay is what troubles me in some situations. This being one of the few.

Now you just need to work on the fact that being "openly gay" doesn't mean hitting on every boy in the troop. It just means if you have a boyfriend outside the troop, you can talk about him, just like a heterosexual boy scout can talk about his girlfriend. I'm not referring to intimate sex talk, either.

I never said that being openly gay involves hitting on every boy in the troop. What I said was that being openly gay introduces an element of sexual circumstance that is not supposed to be a part of what the Boy Scouts are about. It's for this reason that girls are not allowed. Your example is harmless but you can not state with any certainty that sexual situations will not present themselves, further, you can not know what kind of uncomfortable moments, ridicule or confusion may come from openly gay boys now being freely admitted into an organization like this. It may prove to be much more harmful than good for openly gay boys in the end and that would be a shame as well.

You see, the above circumstances are better left out of and away from this type of environment, it simply has no place here. A boy talking about their boyfriend at home is not where this stops, not at all. There is huge potential for very real and very damaging situations to occur and believe me, they will.

I'm talking about having a conversation like this -- heterosexual boy scout: "My girlfriend and I went to see that movie and we really liked it." gay boy scout: "Yeah, my boyfriend and I saw that movie too." In your world, the gay boy scout would not be allowed to even say that. He would have to be quiet. Is that fair?

I see where your going with this and trust me, I sympathize with the logic in arguing that everyone should be free to be who they are and say what they want without fear of persecution. It's hard logic to argue with because I agree with it but in this instance, when I weigh the potential for harm in one hand and the reasons why it is being done in the other, it is a mismatch.

I question the common sense of this because in my estimation it was pushed through under heavy duress to be politically correct without first examining all of the possible repercussions.

How many 12 year old gay American boys have complained that they can't join the scouts because of their sexual orientation for this to be an issue?

Moreover, why would any gay boy even mention their sexual orientation?

"HI! I'd like to join the boy scouts. Did I mention I was gay?"

What possible relevance could this have for them, the scouts, or anyone else?

If effeminate boys have been denied membership that's a different thing altogether, because obviously not all gay boys are effeminate, and not all effeminate boys are gay.

This is another example of the New Left in the globalist juggernaut finding a way to beat people over the head with the bigot stick, by turning a non-issue into a crusade.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

The only issue here is that you feel they have a right to be discriminatory because they are a private organization. Which yes they do the SC affirmed this. Yet are bemoaning the fact that the other private organizations chose to not fund them any longer because of their discriminatory practices. Do these donor organizations have a right to spend that money how they choose?

No, my first issue is the need others have to frame the debate by defining the language used. I said no such things and meant no such things....but it sure sounds good to say I did, huh?

It's not discriminatory as was found in Boy Scouts of America vs. Dale (2000). In that ruling the Supreme Court of the U.S. found, clearly, that they could function as a private organization in setting thier own membership standards and values. They found this was not, by nature or definition, discriminatory.

So, whether this is or is not discrimination isn't subjective or a matter of your opinion or mine. It's settled law and SHOULD have ended it. Of course, that just raised the passions and level of attack to all new levels...which has held at a non-stop level of opposition, on every level, since.

If at first activists don't succeed? Attack Attack again until the other side is destroyed or gives up.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Included in society, yes. Steamrolling the rights of private organizations? No. This wasn't ease to change. This was losing court fight after court fight (Up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court) and turning to guerrilla tactics of intimidation and destruction by attrition when all LEGAL means failed. In this case, the Gay Community showed everything for tactics they should be deeply ashamed of and whatever lesson it taught the kids? They ought to make fine little activists to carry on the tradition later.

They sure saw it up close for outright viciousness.

As I said. Tyranny of the few upon the many. It's just as ugly and just as wrong as Tyranny of one.

You've got a lot of hate in you for gays - I see that. Did you know that the BSA sent out surveys of its regions, and its scout parents, as well as the older scouts, asking for their viewpoints? This was very smart of the BSA. They knew that if the respondents overwhelmingly supported the traditional policies, they would have a stronger case against changing those policies. What they found may have surprised them. Surprised them enough to make them take another look at their policies.

While perspectives and opinions vary significantly, parents, adults in the Scouting community, and teens alike tend to agree that youth should not be denied the benefits of Scouting.

Overall key findings that the Executive Committee considered to be critical to the development of a resolution:

• Attitudes and opinions among Americans related to gay and lesbian relationships have changed rapidly
over the past three years.

• While a majority of adults in the Scouting community support the BSA’s current policy of excluding
open and avowed homosexuals, younger parents and teens tend to oppose the policy.

• Views among parents under the age of 50 have changed significantly in the past three years, with a
majority now opposing the BSA’s current policy.

• Parents in three of four BSA regions oppose the current membership policy.

• Of six scenarios presented in surveys to parents, teens, and members of the Scouting community, the
one scenario with which overwhelming majorities of parents, teens, and members of the Scouting
community strongly agree is that it would be unacceptable to deny an openly gay Scout an Eagle Scout
Award solely because of his sexual orientation.

www.kdbc.com...

If you are going to start hating on people, you are going to have to include all those heterosexual parents and teens who want gay boy scouts included.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

I'm sorry but you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of a difference of terms. Boycott is a temporary effort made against a business or group to bring about political or policy change.

15 YEARS OF IT is not a boycott, it's economic terrorism. I didn't understand myself just HOW long, HOW deep and how VICIOUS this fight against the BSA has been for soooo many years, non stop, until getting into this to learn last night for this and another thread. It's atrocious.

If a minority *NEEDS* these tactics and *NEEDS* national support just to tread water and survive as a functional group? (As it seems to be claimed at times), then perhaps they need to look at THEMSELVES for just why and how they are a super minority among the population and stop acting like they are 90%, dealing with the few stragglers for intelligence left in the world.

The attitude is as outright offensive and purely counter-productive to the 'cause' as the fanatic and frankly, sick levels of obsessive action we see taken against targets of them.

15 years is temporary. It had a beginning and is now at an end because of a change the organization made. The boycott got enough support from the community to allow for the pressure to be felt by the organization in question, and that organization decided to change.

The free market worked. Someone was selling a product that others disagreed with and took inroads to have that product changed.

reply to post by seabag

These are the strong-arm tactics of community agitators like Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Obama, etc. This is the new formula for jamming things down our throats. They presume most will cave under the pressure and in most cases they do. It’s disgusting that companies allow themselves to be bullied like that. If I was the president of BSA I would have told them exactly where they can go… My kids won’t be in the Scouts now; that’s a shame.

It is a shame, I have five boys and of those, four of them were involved in the Scouts, this will no longer be the case and my position is far from being in the minority.

In my community locally, the amount of parents that are removing their children from the scouts is unprecedented. Out of the 2 dozen parents that I see through baseball and softball that I know have kids involved with the Scouts, all but one family is removing their children.

Don't take my word for it though, check back in three months and see the decimation of the membership for yourselves. This will be the end of the BSOA as we know them.

reply to post by kaylaluv

Perhaps you have heard me say, several times now, I do not hate gays. Perhaps you simply aren't reading what you're replying to at all. I don't know how else to explain a reply like this:

You've got a lot of hate in you for gays - I see that. Did you know that the BSA sent out surveys of its regions, and its scout parents, as well as the older scouts, asking for their viewpoints? This was very smart of the BSA. They knew that if the respondents overwhelmingly supported the traditional policies, they would have a stronger case against changing those policies. What they found may have surprised them. Surprised them enough to make them take another look at their policies.

Now you can paint this any way you choose, as you are doing with enthusiasm. The cold FACTS of the case are that the Gay Community set it's sites on the Boy Scouts of America in the late 90's. Lost outright at the Supreme Court in 2000, and set about a campaign of attrition to change OR destroy the BSA, whichever came first. It's extended from fund raising, to their welcome in after hours locations for Scout meetings and Functions to a myriad of lesser state court cases to play around the edges of their loss in the Super Court to get parts anyway, by lower levels.

It's a fanatic obsession, is what it's been and it's been 100% relentless. That is out of line, in my opinion, and tyrannical in both approach and end result. "DO IT OUR WAY OR WE WILL INSURE YOU HAVE NO WAY" and for over a decade that message has been pounded on all levels, in all ways and by using all methods available.

Yes...we'll keep arguing other things, side issues and red herrings. That part is coming to be entertaining for what new side path we'll take next to try and win points. Any points. Anywhere in this debate.

In the end, it's still about one thing. A group of under 5% of the population, forcing by economic terrorism, the internal changes to policy and procedure of a private organization.....despite our highest court saying no such change was due or had to come. It's as simple as it gets. It really is.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I was happy to hear this the other day. And there are rumors of supporters pulling out and parents pulling their kids out. Can you imagine punishing your child like that for political reasons???

I think it's important for people who support getting rid of this ban to contact the Boy Scouts and let them know.

LOL! The hypocrisy hurts my side!

Can you imagine labeling your child as openly gay for personal narcissistic adult reasons???