Boy Scouts of America vote to allow gay members

posted at 10:01 pm on May 23, 2013 by Mary Katharine Ham

A reversal of the ban on openly gay Scouts passed by 60 percent out of the National Council’s meeting, but the policy on gay adult leaders remains unchanged:

The Boy Scouts of America voted Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay kids and teens from joining one of the nation’s most popular youth organizations, ditching membership guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.

Over 60 percent of Scouting’s National Council of 1,400 delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban, BSA officials said. The ban on gay leaders was not voted on and will remain in place.

“This resolution today dealt with youth. We have not changed our adult membership standards. They have served us well for the last 100 years. Those were not on the table,” said Tico Perez, BSA national commissioner.

I’m sufficiently torn on this subject that I don’t write much about it. I think Scouting is an important force for good in this country, and am happy to see as many kids involved as possible, gay and straight. Frankly, I was jealous that I couldn’t be in the Pinewood Derby. There is a generational shift that means more and more present and future Scouts will be perfectly comfortable with this new guideline. I also have understanding for those who worry there will never be enough rule changes in this private, traditional organization to satisfy some activists on the left until the Scouts are just another organization of the cultural left. Many feel like they didn’t join Scouts to be involved in a series of skirmishes in the culture war, and know there will be plenty more to come. The fight to allow gay leaders starts today, as activists made clear:

But the outcome of the historic ballot is not going to end the debate: Some opponents on the right said they would pull their sponsorships of packs and troops, and parents threatened to take their boys out of Scouting; LGBT activists said the policy change doesn’t go far enough because gay adults still wouldn’t be allowed to participate.

Ohio mom Jennifer Tyrrell, who was ousted in April 2012 as den leader of her son’s Tiger Cub pack because she is a lesbian, said it was a step forward even though she wouldn’t benefit from the change.

“I am so excited because even though it doesn’t affect me, it is what we’ve been working for,” she said. “And I think it’s an indication of what’s to come.”

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9

Umm, I was “born with” two…

Nutstuyu on May 24, 2013 at 4:00 PM

I…umm…don’t know how to respond to that.

An old saying of my dad’s was, “He’s as useless as a bull with two pr*cks.”

I think I’ll end this conversation right now….~slinks away~

Liam on May 24, 2013 at 4:05 PM

No worries, just felt like getting a little cheeky with teh ghey’s “born with it” shtick.

Nutstuyu on May 24, 2013 at 6:20 PM

ROFL! When confronted with facts that are contrary to my belief system, I don’t tend to freak out and go on a weird anti-realist rant about denying objective reality. … Is that considered normal behavior for you?

ZachV on May 24, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Dude. The arguments made were exactly the same arguments that you made, except applied one level up. And purposefully so. To illustrate the inanity of your “arguments.” Go buy some self awareness. You apparently have none.

besser tot als rot on May 24, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Not just sexuality, but boys and homosexual sex, in the same breath. It’s child abuse.

Paul-Cincy on May 24, 2013 at 6:15 PM

You’re not making any sense here. Sex, any sex, is still held by the organization to be contrary to the virtues of scouting.

alchemist19 on May 24, 2013 at 6:24 PM

As to a Christian becoming an atheist, that person was one in whom the truth of the Gospel never really took root for whatever reason. INC on May 24, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Think again. Jesus didn’t mention pretend branches in John 15.

Akzed on May 24, 2013 at 4:36 PM

Matthew 13
1 That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the lake. 2 Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore. 3 Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9 Whoever has ears, let them hear.”

Nutstuyu on May 24, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Sex, any sex, is still held by the organization to be contrary to the virtues of scouting.

alchemist19 on May 24, 2013 at 6:24 PM

No. It was. Now it’s not. At least not homosexual sex. We don’t know how they feel about minor heterosexuality. But we know that minor homosexuality gets the thumbs up. Your blatant intellectual inconsistency is tiring.

besser tot als rot on May 24, 2013 at 6:28 PM

No. It was. Now it’s not. At least not homosexual sex. We don’t know how they feel about minor heterosexuality. But we know that minor homosexuality gets the thumbs up. Your blatant intellectual inconsistency is tiring.

besser tot als rot on May 24, 2013 at 6:28 PM

You remind me of what Reagan said about liberals in the Goldwater speech back in 1964. Your problem isn’t that you’re ignorant, it’s just that you know so much that isn’t so.

http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/content/MembershipStandards/Resolution/results.aspx

alchemist19 on May 24, 2013 at 6:31 PM

You remind me of what Reagan said about liberals in the Goldwater speech back in 1964. Your problem isn’t that you’re ignorant, it’s just that you know so much that isn’t so.

http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/content/MembershipStandards/Resolution/results.aspx

alchemist19 on May 24, 2013 at 6:31 PM

I suppose you think that you are rebutting my statement with BSA’s self-serving CYA link. Why don’t you make your case for yourself? Too scared that you’ll have to rely on lies or straw men?

besser tot als rot on May 24, 2013 at 6:37 PM

I suppose you think that you are rebutting my statement with BSA’s self-serving CYA link. Why don’t you make your case for yourself? Too scared that you’ll have to rely on lies or straw men?

besser tot als rot on May 24, 2013 at 6:37 PM

I am rebutting it. It’s a clear statement in black and white from the organization itself. The person I responded to and then you made a claim based totally off supposition with no supporting evidence so I presented the organization’s own clearly stated position. It runs counter to your narrative and thus proves your supposition is incorrect and so now you’re trying to put the burden of proof back on me despite you’ve offered none of your own evidence beyond what you’ve cooked up in your own head when I’ve already presented clear, unequivocal evidence to the contrary that shows you’re completely off-base.

I hope you’re not a lawyer. And if you are I hope your rates are very, very low.

alchemist19 on May 24, 2013 at 6:54 PM

I suppose you think that you are rebutting my statement with BSA’s self-serving CYA link. Why don’t you make your case for yourself? Too scared that you’ll have to rely on lies or straw men?

besser tot als rot on May 24, 2013 at 6:37 PM

That statement is self serving and does not deal with what actually happened with the council vote. The reality is simple. By voting to allow self identifying homosexuals in, the council as rescinded over 100 years of policy on this matter. Consequently, BSA has gone to the dark side and is not worthy of the support of anyone holding traditional, biblically based morality. As far as I am concerned, BSA is dead. It6 was a good run, and it is one more thing that defined the type of country the US was, and is no more.

The left simply destroys. They build absolutely nothing, except tyranny.

Quartermaster on May 24, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Did you hear the one about the gay teenage boy?

A reporter asks him – “So, are you thinking of joining the Boy Scouts?”

Gay Boy – “Of course! That’s where the boys are!”

redguy on May 24, 2013 at 6:57 PM

I am rebutting it. It’s a clear statement in black and white from the organization itself.

alchemist19 on May 24, 2013 at 6:54 PM

Do you know what a “whereas clause” is? Bing it.

And the allowing of open and avowed homosexuals clearly indicates that the whereas clause is purely introductory and carries no true weight.

And what is my narrative? What is my supposition that is supposedly proven incorrect? You are too scared to even address them because you are incapable of logic thought and cannot engage in debate without fallacy. Further, your conclusory statements are pathetic. Your ad hominem attacks are even more pathetic.

besser tot als rot on May 24, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Membership in the Boy Scouts has declined from 5.2 million in 1960 to 2.6 million today. The Girl Scouts have dropped from 3.3 million to 2.1 million girls over the same period.

bw222 on May 24, 2013 at 7:04 PM

You remind me of what Reagan said about liberals in the Goldwater speech back in 1964. Your problem isn’t that you’re ignorant, it’s just that you know so much that isn’t so.

alchemist19 on May 24, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Not really.

We know that children having sex is perfectly acceptable to and is encouraged by the gay and lesbian community.

We also know that you and BSA leadership are cowards who are too afraid of being called “homophobic” to actually act.

And we know what happens then.

northdallasthirty on May 24, 2013 at 7:12 PM

besser tot als rot on May 24, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Wait, you mean you really *are* a lawyer? HA! Sorry, I’m going to be really proud of myself on that one. But I do hope for your own sake that you take my advice on the low rates very seriously. :)

You jumped on my case when I was responding to someone who was talking about homosexual sex. I was going to try to draw out what he was getting at but then you butted in. The stated policy of the Scouts is “No sex.” By his bringing up sex it’s running contrary to that stated policy without evidence to support his case. I was wondering if perhaps he didn’t know the difference between a sexual orientation and the act of sex, but I wanted to hear more from him before I tried to form a conclusion on whether or not that was really the case.

So what is it exactly that you think again?

alchemist19 on May 24, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Nutstuyu on May 24, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Repeating an earlier response to that quote by Akzed:

Akzed on May 24, 2013 at 4:36 PM

I don’t know if you misinterpreted me. I was quoting John 15 about the fact that Christians are to expect being despised. I agree with you on pretend branches, I was going to quote some earlier passages in John and from 1 John on the reality that true Christian will repudiate his or her faith.

INC on May 24, 2013 at 4:43 PM

INC on May 24, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Not just sexuality, but boys and homosexual sex, in the same breath. It’s child abuse.

Paul-Cincy on May 24, 2013 at 6:15 PM

You’re not making any sense here. Sex, any sex, is still held by the organization to be contrary to the virtues of scouting.

alchemist19 on May 24, 2013 at 6:24 PM

You’re supposing there is “sexual orientation” without any outside indication of sexual orientation? How would anyone know someone “is” gay unless they make some kind of indication? They can’t. There has to be some indication of “I’m sexually attracted to other boys” for others to know. And then comes the question, what behavior does a boy’s sexual attraction to another boy entail. The gay version of the “birds and the bees”. And that’s the introduction of the knowledge of gay male sex practices into the Boy Scouts.

So we have a scenario where a 14 year old Boy Scout is fond of saying “I think boys are cute”, “I love to hold boys in my arms and tell them how cute they are” and “When I grow up I’m going to marry a boy” … and he could be the most obnoxious jerk of a boy you ever saw, but he couldn’t be kicked out of the Boy Scouts for this, because all he’s doing is indicating he’s gay.

Paul-Cincy on May 24, 2013 at 7:43 PM

The parable of the sower about the Gospel falling on different soils was mentioned earlier (Matthew 13, Mark 4). To further clarify, here’s the passage in John I was thinking of. Those who are true believers will not leave the faith, but persevere. No one is able to snatch them away from God, including our own self!

27 “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
–John 10:27-30

This is the passage I was thinking of in 1 John.

They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.
–i John 2:19

There are other passages that make it clear that there will be false professions of faith, including the parable of the wheat and tares.

24 Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. 26 But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. 27 The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 And he said to them, ‘An enemy has done this!’ The slaves *said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he *said, ‘No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”
–Matthew 13:24-30

The parable of the sower is found earlier in this chapter.

INC on May 24, 2013 at 7:47 PM

Paul-Cincy on May 24, 2013 at 7:43 PM

Do you think that adolescent boys don’t know that gay people exist? Because once you find out that there are such things everything you listed that a gay scout could say are kind of implicitly understood about how that person thinks. I can’t come up with a reason anyone would go through saying the litany of things you did; I wouldn’t want to hear anyone go through their desires regardless of what their sexual orientation is.

The BSA commissioned a poll of current scouts and found that a majority of them were in favor of the policy change so that suggests to me that they already know gay people exist, what gay people are, and that they’re not really bothered by them.

alchemist19 on May 24, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Do you think that adolescent boys don’t know that gay people exist?

alchemist19 on May 24, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Again, you’re conflating “being” (or “existing”) and “doing”. It’s a basic error. I can’t help you.

Paul-Cincy on May 24, 2013 at 8:14 PM

Again, you’re conflating “being” (or “existing”) and “doing”. It’s a basic error. I can’t help you.

Paul-Cincy on May 24, 2013 at 8:14 PM

My whole point has been the big difference between “being” and “doing”!

alchemist19 on May 24, 2013 at 8:16 PM

I can’t come up with a reason anyone would go through saying the litany of things you did; I wouldn’t want to hear anyone go through their desires regardless of what their sexual orientation is.

So you’re a homophobe.

Now while you choke on that, it is EXACTLY what you are saying to anyone who raises any objections whatsoever to this.

This is what makes you and yours funny. No one seriously believes you would ever stop a gay child from sexually assaulting or harassing another; you would just simply call the other child a bigot. There is nothing that a bigot gay cannot do that you will not run around screaming that we have to allow because otherwise we’re homophobes.

It all boils down to this. The BSA is stupid, because bigots like yourself who were screaming and demanding this policy change have no interest in helping children OR the values of being in Boy Scouts; you simply wanted to destroy them. You don’t care one bit about children, as the facts show; you simply have to express your stupidity and bigotry.

northdallasthirty on May 24, 2013 at 8:22 PM

My whole point has been the big difference between “being” and “doing”!

alchemist19 on May 24, 2013 at 8:16 PM

Yup.

And the values of “being” involve “doing” things like this and like this.

I can fully understand why parents wouldn’t want their children around gay kids, given how gays and lesbians behave and act and how they support and endorse traitors.

Perhaps instead of screaming at people and organizations to lower their standards, you should be demanding that the gay community raise its.

Or would that be “hateful” and “homophobic”?

Which I find funny, because your refusal to hold gays and lesbians responsible for their behavior is no different than the racism of the Obama Party toward black people.

That’s probably why I’ve never bought your pretend-support of “gay rights”; it’s obvious plantation kindness, and I’m better than that.

northdallasthirty on May 24, 2013 at 8:25 PM

The chief argument against the ruling seems to be that now kids have to learn about gay sex. I would ask if allowing straight kids to be in the Scouts means that kids have to learn about straight sexual intercourse.

bmmg39 on May 24, 2013 at 2:28 PM
Your problem is you see some equivalence between straight sex and gay sex. There is none. One is normal and natural; the other is perverted.

Paul-Cincy on May 24, 2013 at 6:15 PM

Perverted according to your personal opinion. Okay. That still doesn’t mean anyone needs to explain sexual practices to children because they learn someone is gay or straight. And, again, a person can be gay OR straight and still not be sexually active.

bmmg39 on May 24, 2013 at 11:16 PM

Sex, any sex, is still held by the organization to be contrary to the virtues of scouting.

alchemist19 on May 24, 2013 at 6:24 PM

No. It was. Now it’s not. At least not homosexual sex. We don’t know how they feel about minor heterosexuality. But we know that minor homosexuality gets the thumbs up. Your blatant intellectual inconsistency is tiring.

besser tot als rot on May 24, 2013 at 6:28 PM

No. You’re wrong. Allowing gay people into the Scouts doesn’t mean Boy Scouts are allowed to have sex, just as allowing straight people into the Scouts doesn’t mean Boy Scouts are allowed to have sex.

bmmg39 on May 24, 2013 at 11:19 PM

and was an Eagle Boy Scout.
TeaPartyNation on May 24, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Your son is quite an exceptional boy. His dad is an even more exceptional liar.

Eagle Scout is the proper rank-title. It’s a lifetime ranking. Also the average age for boys earning Eagle Scout is 17.

You would know this stuff … if you weren’t lying. How sad that you have to lie about your boy’s accomplishment.

NEVER let him catch you doing that, NEVER. You will wound him horribly.

Capitalist Hog on May 25, 2013 at 12:40 AM

Tea Party Nation you have just been identified as pure scum. Lying about your kids is about as sad as a man can get.

I’m sure your boy is a better man than his dad. I truly doubt he’s the bigot you are. That’s probably why you felt compelled to lie about him and why you could do so with such ease.

Capitalist Hog on May 25, 2013 at 12:43 AM

It’s not a natural assumption at all. It was a stupid assumption.

blink on May 24, 2013 at 3:43 PM

blink, if I have any questions specifically for the tedious and dim-witted I’ll be sure to direct them straight to you.

DarkCurrent on May 25, 2013 at 3:04 AM

So because I don’t believe in fictional spirits (and am not shy about stating that fact) then I couldn’t possibly be true that I respect the right of others to do so?

Riiiight….

Sharke on May 24, 2013 at 1:02 AM

No. You would simply say I respect your right to believe whatever you believe. You would not impugn your judgment on them. See the difference? You’re saying I totally respect you to be an ignorant fool because I’m so vastly superior to you. That’s not respect, jackass.

John the Libertarian on May 25, 2013 at 4:11 AM

Good God, atheists are the biggest flippin’ morons. Sophomores, as in, “wise fools.”

John the Libertarian on May 25, 2013 at 4:16 AM

Simple-
My relationship with the Lord.
The end.

bazil9 on May 24, 2013 at 4:33 PM

In your view, is homosexual activity a sin?

DarkCurrent on May 25, 2013 at 4:56 AM

Wikipedia is a Liberal-controlled entity. You have to be approved before they allow you to collaborate.

But, of course you knew that, you dishonest Troll.

kingsjester on May 24, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Actually you don’t.

DarkCurrent on May 25, 2013 at 5:06 AM

Next Stop: Removing the pledge from meetings. Surely someone will be offedned by the pledge. Then removing God from and reference in the organization. Maybe, just maybe, some pink badge of some sort. Surely this the mere approving of Gays isnt disruptive enough. They’ll need to do more.

johnnyU on May 25, 2013 at 9:31 AM

My take.

kingsjester on May 25, 2013 at 9:51 AM

My take.

kingsjester on May 25, 2013 at 9:51 AM

+1000

So much for “Morally Straight”

Next Stop: Removing the pledge from meetings. Surely someone will be offedned by the pledge. Then removing God from and reference in the organization. Maybe, just maybe, some pink badge of some sort. Surely this the mere approving of Gays isn’t disruptive enough. They’ll need to do more.

There’s never a stop to the Leftist activism. Not until all people and organizations of traditional values have discarded all moral judgement and assimilated completely to the humanist ideology of the Left.

hawkeye54 on May 25, 2013 at 11:18 AM

I’m curious … what EXACTLY does this mean?

I ask in light of this article.

http://www.livescience.com/34634-celibate-gay-christians-desire.html

I assume the scouts won’t allow sexual contact between troops. Does it mean they will allow people who have sexual attraction to men but are determined to fight those desires? There’s a difference between, say, “I am sexually attracted to X” and “I am going to actually sleep with X if I can”. I’m a man married to a woman. That means I don’t sleep with someone else of EITHER sex regardless of whether they stop traffic or not.

All teenage boys have them ragin’ hormones which leads them to do stupid things. Is it wrong to say “YOUR temptation to do something stupid is worse than MY temptation to stupidity, so we’ll kick you out but we’ll teach this OTHER guy how to master his desires and live a life of integrity and honor.”

pendell2 on May 25, 2013 at 11:25 AM

It wasn’t that great of an organization. It explicitly excluded boys who wanted to join just because of their sexuality.

Sharke on May 23, 2013 at 10:50 PM

The sexuality issue is sodomy.

Boys were encouraged to join Scouting because it was considered a wholesome influence

What is called ‘gay’ by one group, is called sodomy in the Bible. The Bible is not morals neutral. Christ forgave the adulteress, but admonished her to sin no more.

Sodomists have a different moral code. They approve sodomy. They announce their sexual radar is directed at same sex.

Morality is not an option. If the parents want their children to understand sodomy is a sin, they pull their kids from the sodomist organization

What is happening with the homosexual movement today, is no different from Biblical times. John the Baptist condemned the immorality of Herod, and his wife and step daughter Salome. They did not like being called sinners, so they shut up John by cutting off his head. His voice was stopped but they were still sinners

John refused to be politically correct

entagor on May 25, 2013 at 11:56 AM

BSA is SUPPOSED to be a private organization.

I supposed the disgruntled gays will now rip out all the religion from BSA. They will never be satisfied until they decimate every organization.

Deeply disappointed in BSA.

pastselldate on May 25, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Would they allow a 14 year old boy at Girl Scout summer camp? Let’s get real here. The feral hormones running rampant through the veins of any gay or straight teenage boy leads them to the inevitable urge to experiment.
How can anyone think it’s cool to place gay boys in the intimate setting of a traditional Boy Scout summer camp.
Not a homophobe, just an ex scout and ex teenage boy. I would have loved to share the shower room at Girl Scout camp.

FireBlogger on May 25, 2013 at 12:45 PM

As has been pointed out here, scouting membership is down and this will force it lower still. 60% of members polled against this policy and 60% of BSA voters went for it. Further illustration of what happens to so-called leaders when they get together and start pandering to external groups. Isn’t that also the story of Washington DC?

Gays don’t like the Scouts or what they stand for. They don’t want to join in great numbers and they probably don’t want to be leaders either.

Same thing with church and clergy membership and with so-called gay-marriage. Individual permanent-victim-mentality gays are being used by liberals to destroy institutions they don’t agree with (because they don’t recognize government supremacy).

Hagel has started attacking the military for the same reasons.

Let’s stop scratching our heads thinking about the BSA issue because its the big picture we are missing, which is the continued expansion of state power into every corner of society.

virgo on May 25, 2013 at 1:08 PM

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! How funny is that?

I’m sure your embarrassed by that, but you should have come clean when you made your first stupid comment instead of digging yourself into a deeper hole.

blink on May 25, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Not at all, since you’re well aware that’s not really what you or I said.

I am embarassed for you though.

DarkCurrent on May 25, 2013 at 1:12 PM

Membership in the Boy Scouts has declined from 5.2 million in 1960 to 2.6 million today.
bw222 on May 24, 2013 at 7:04 PM

I expect it to drop to below 1 million within 2 years now.

Robert Jensen on May 25, 2013 at 1:15 PM

The alternative to the Girl Scouts is American Heritage Girls. I know several girls who are in that, and they enjoy it.

KyMouse on May 25, 2013 at 1:29 PM

The continued destruction of morality in American society continues apace. I was a Scout in my youth, but I’ll be certain that none of my children ever become Scouts. Sad time for people who believe in morals and objective laws.

njrob on May 25, 2013 at 2:41 PM

2) Absolutely nothing bad will come of permitting homosexual boys to join the Boy Scouts, and everyone who insisted that it would will look stupid in 10 years time.

Sharke on May 23, 2013 at 10:40 PM

Obviously, I am late to this post and comments.

But, with “Sharke”‘s ongoing remarks promoting his/her obviously homosexual activist “dictionary of thought,” I’d like to pose this rhetorical question:

WHO IDENTIFIES A CHILD AS “HOMOSEXUAL” AND HOW IS THAT DONE?

Contrary to “Sharke” and the homosexual activism boiling today, children are not sexualized, are not sexual, are not familiar with or knowledgeable about adult/adolescent introductions to or participations in relations with others defined by sexual gestures and engagement.

As living things, our species reproduces (“sex”) by way of two genders. That’s who we are, that’s the process of our life process (biological imperative for animal species defined as living to reproductive age, successfully reproducing and raising to also reproduce another generation via parenting children born of that reproductive process).

“Variations” of sexual acts, contrary and apart from heterosexual interactions, is learned behavior. Contrary to homosexual-activist CULTURAL insistence, it is not a result of inherent biological character, it is a learned behavior: someone or ones must instruct, teach, “tell” or otherwise display to developing adolescents what the acts are and encourage adolescents to accept those acts as theirs.

When you distinguish a child by this learned sexuality, insist they “chose” character that is contrary to their own development, you are sexualizing a child and also doing so as a perverse activity.

Most individuals by way of our biology mature to reproduce with another individual (“heterosexuality”). A few are led to believe they are of some alternative identity.

That process of being led to believe in an identity contrary to normal development is what the process of “homosexuality” is and it’s indecent beyond all standards of grace and goodness to insist such upon any child.

So, again, how is any child determined to “be” “homosexual”? Who tells them they are? How does any group determine that any child is that?

Lourdes on May 25, 2013 at 3:36 PM

There ARE no “gay boys” except children who have been perverted by adults into performing or expecting to be performed by or upon them behaviors no child would otherwise be aware of (had they not been instructed or informed of those acts by another).

Even so much as referring to “gay boys” is perverse.

Lourdes on May 25, 2013 at 3:38 PM

kim roy on May 23, 2013 at 10:33 PM

What in God’s name are you talking about? “Not having it about sex at all” would have been to permit all boys to join the Scouts, regardless of their sexuality. Banning homosexual boys is very much defining the Boy Scouts “according to parameters.”

Sharke on May 23, 2013 at 10:36 PM

God and His name have nothing to do with your perverse reference and knowledge of “gay boys,” Sharke.

Lourdes on May 25, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Ohio mom Jennifer Tyrrell, who was ousted in April 2012 as den leader of her son’s Tiger Cub pack because she is a lesbian, said it was a step forward even though she wouldn’t benefit from the change.

Disturbing that Ms. Tyrrell was devious in her activities.

Lourdes on May 25, 2013 at 3:44 PM

but if they want to do it of their own volition then fine. Likewise, if you don’t like it, then form or join another group.

Sharke on May 23, 2013 at 10:44 PM

Why have not homosexual activists not done that themselves?

Or, rather, try and apply your idea there (“if you don’t like it, then form…another group”) to homosexual activists and their “gay boys”. I assume you’d be quite contentious at that idea.

Lourdes on May 25, 2013 at 3:47 PM

It wasn’t that great of an organization. It explicitly excluded boys who wanted to join just because of their sexuality.

Sharke on May 23, 2013 at 10:50 PM

There’s that perverse reference again to “gay boys” and children and “their sexuality” (your words, your concepts, not mine).

Children had been “excluded” (your word, again), more appropriately, had been denied membership in BSA if and as they as children identified as and with homosexuality, which is or was good pscyhology and not the perverse sort you’re promoting here in comments.

And though a private organization, BSA has submitted to an economic and cultural threat brought about by your very kind of dark psychology, and that is, the insistence that children have “sexuality”.

Lourdes on May 25, 2013 at 3:53 PM

I am not advocating a demand on anything or anyone. As a libertarian I believe that every private organization has the right to ban whomever it wants for whatever reason.

What would be the point of forming a “Gay Boy Scouts”? You can just have them all in the same Boy Scouts, far more efficient.

Sharke on May 23, 2013 at 10:54 PM

You’re not a Libertarian, and you ARE advocating a cultural demand, already revealed in your earlier comments.

Your sort of “Libertarian” is, I’d say, the sort of “Republican” that is of the Log Cabin sort. As in, not mutually defining or agreeable if not the latter subversive by their own admission to the former.

Lourdes on May 25, 2013 at 3:57 PM

…The BSA does not discriminate against gays; they never have. The membership application doesn’t even ask about sexual orientation. There has never been a witch-hunt to find and remove homosexuals from the ranks. There may currently be Scouts and adult leaders in uniform that are gay. They’re discreet, though; they’re private and they conduct themselves in an appropriate manner around other young boys.

This is about promoting a political agenda.

eaglescout_1998 on May 23, 2013 at 10:56 PM


The membership application doesn’t even ask about sexual orientation.

Exactly right.

DITTO.

Lourdes on May 25, 2013 at 3:58 PM

You’re either physically attracted to other men or you aren’t.

Sharke on May 23, 2013 at 11:10 PM

Children, boys, are not “men”.

Lourdes on May 25, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Homosexual boys who repress their sexuality because they’ve been taught it’s “immoral” suffer all kinds of psychological problems and usually lead unhappy, unfulfilled lives. I truly don’t believe that allowing gays to join the Boy Scouts will damage it in the long run.

Sharke on May 23, 2013 at 11:10 PM

“Homosexual boys,” you say.

Who told them what that is, that they were ‘it’ and how are they identified by “men,” those “men” you claim “have no choice” in their “homosexuality”?

Lourdes on May 25, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Sickening. When will the gay lobby SHUT THE HELL UP!

Winebabe on May 25, 2013 at 7:47 PM

Sickening. When will the gay lobby SHUT THE HELL UP! – Winebabe on May 25, 2013 at 7:47 PM

Perhaps when you shut the heck up?

SC.Charlie on May 25, 2013 at 8:38 PM

It wasn’t that great of an organization. It explicitly excluded boys who wanted to join just because of their sexuality.

Sharke on May 23, 2013 at 10:50 PM

.
The sexuality issue is sodomy.

Boys were encouraged to join Scouting because it was considered a wholesome influence

What is called ‘gay’ by one group, is called sodomy in the Bible. The Bible is not morals neutral. Christ forgave the adulteress, but admonished her to sin no more.

entagor on May 25, 2013 at 11:56 AM

.
Great scripture reference entagor.

Homosexuality will NEVER be accepted as a valid, legitimate, alternate-state of NORMALITY.

The Intelligent Creator would have to change, and He’s not gonna.

listens2glenn on May 25, 2013 at 8:48 PM

Sickening. When will the gay lobby SHUT THE HELL UP! –

Winebabe on May 25, 2013 at 7:47 PM

.
Perhaps when you shut the heck up?

SC.Charlie on May 25, 2013 at 8:38 PM

.
I don’t expect anybody on any side of any issue to “SHUT THE HELL UP”, until the Second Coming.

I can ‘wish they would’ or pray that they would, but I can’t demand it or otherwise force them to.
.
But when Jesus returns, everybody will “shut up” for a time ….. some more permanently than others.

listens2glenn on May 25, 2013 at 8:57 PM

Lourdes on May 25, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Lourdes on May 25, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Lourdes on May 25, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Lourdes on May 25, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Lourdes on May 25, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Lourdes on May 25, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Your words betray your own ignorance. It’s a shame you can be so passionate and ill-informed at the same time. But when you lose, and make no mistake you will completely, totally, utterly be defeated at every turn until there are no hills left to die on, and it all turns out to be no big deal, I will revel in your misery and derive satisfaction from it.

alchemist19 on May 25, 2013 at 9:23 PM

So, again, how is any child determined to “be” “homosexual”? Who tells them they are? How does any group determine that any child is that?

Lourdes on May 25, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Being gay isn’t just about sex, just like being straight isn’t. If I tell you that I am straight, which I am, I haven’t told you anything about having sex with women (something I don’t do, because I am not sexually active. I am, however, romantically attracted to women, not men. A child can be romantically attracted to the same gender without having sex.

bmmg39 on May 25, 2013 at 9:44 PM

As we see with the usual suspects and by that I mean the cultural left defending this statutory rapist lesbian in the other tread, the ultimate goal is to reduce the age of consent and encourage homosexual activity. I will never allow any child of mine anywhere near the Scouts.

njrob on May 26, 2013 at 12:04 AM

Your words betray your own ignorance. It’s a shame you can be so passionate and ill-informed at the same time. But when you lose, and make no mistake you will completely, totally, utterly be defeated at every turn until there are no hills left to die on, and it all turns out to be no big deal, I will revel in your misery and derive satisfaction from it.
alchemist19 on May 25, 2013 at 9:23 PM

Worked out so well for Greece didn’t it?

Skywise on May 26, 2013 at 12:38 AM

the ultimate goal is to reduce the age of consent…

njrob on May 26, 2013 at 12:04 AM

Evidence?

bmmg39 on May 26, 2013 at 2:27 AM

If the BSofA (or anyone lamenting this decision) believe there haven’t already been gay boys or leaders/masters in the BSofA …You’re fooling yourselves.

It’s kinda like clergy in the Catholic church. Gay men were there before the stories of pedo’s preying on kids…and they’ll be there afterwards…And not EVERY pedo in the Catholic church was, or is, gay.

Also, if the BSofA (or anyone lamenting this decision) believe there aren’t pedo acts by straight leaders/masters…You’re fooling yourselves even more.

Talismen on May 26, 2013 at 8:56 AM

Evidence?

bmmg39 on May 26, 2013 at 2:27 AM

2 words: Kaitlyn Hunt

Some more words… England discusses lowering the age of consent

njrob on May 26, 2013 at 8:59 AM

Wow. Two words — as in one person. Good to see one person or a handful of people in England constitutes a representative sample for the whole world, or “all the gays,” or whatever point you thought you had made.

bmmg39 on May 26, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Tragic to see the BSA succumb to the overwhelming harassment of the past decade and reverse on one of its principles.

DaMav on May 26, 2013 at 1:15 PM

“pedo acts by straight leaders”

Male on male acts are homosexual by definition. The homosexual lobby is trying to change the language again, as they did with “gay”, substituting a marketing term for an accurate one.

DaMav on May 26, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Now they can play “capture the fag”.

Oh that was a lame joke.

SparkPlug on May 26, 2013 at 1:39 PM

I predict that some day the left will demand that girls stop from being excluded in the Boy Scouts.

SparkPlug on May 26, 2013 at 2:33 PM

No. You would simply say I respect your right to believe whatever you believe. You would not impugn your judgment on them. See the difference? You’re saying I totally respect you to be an ignorant fool because I’m so vastly superior to you. That’s not respect, jackass.

John the Libertarian on May 25, 2013 at 4:11 AM

No, you’re just embellishing what I said with all kinds of things that I didn’t say in order to make your argument sound less ridiculous.

I will say it again. Just because I think religious people are misguided does not mean I do not respect their right to practice religion. It’s exactly the same as saying “I respect your right to say stupid things” in the spirit of free speech. Do you understand, moron? I respect your right. I don’t respect what you believe in, any more than you respect atheism or whatever it is you think is misguided. But I respect your freedom to believe in whatever you want. If you don’t understand this then you’re an intellectual midget.

Sharke on May 26, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Wow. Two words — as in one person. Good to see one person or a handful of people in England constitutes a representative sample for the whole world, or “all the gays,” or whatever point you thought you had made.

bmmg39 on May 26, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Stop being deliberately deceitful. It’s the conversation behind these two current events that shows intent. Look at the conversations around these events and you will see the goals of these groups.

njrob on May 26, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Ever heard of “age of consent?”

Kids don’t need to be thinking about sex at all, but the Boy Scouts are saying that not only is it okay for kids to think about sex, but it is okay for them to think about gay sex. That is, it is not okay for a Scout leader to tell a child that it is not okay if he is thinking about gay sex. That would be “hateful,” see?

Anyone who thinks this is okay probably has an invisible millstone hanging around his neck.

gocatholic on May 26, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Stop being deliberately deceitful. It’s the conversation behind these two current events that shows intent. Look at the conversations around these events and you will see the goals of these groups.

njrob on May 26, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Where’s the deceit? You’re still wildly generalizing.

Kids don’t need to be thinking about sex at all, but the Boy Scouts are saying that not only is it okay for kids to think about sex, but it is okay for them to think about gay sex.

Who said they’ll be thinking about sex? If they were introduced to straight people, would they have to think about straight sex?

bmmg39 on May 26, 2013 at 11:58 PM

Your words betray your own ignorance. It’s a shame you can be so passionate and ill-informed at the same time. But when you lose, and make no mistake you will completely, totally, utterly be defeated at every turn until there are no hills left to die on, and it all turns out to be no big deal, I will revel in your misery and derive satisfaction from it.
alchemist19 on May 25, 2013 at 9:23 PM

What an incredibly childish comment.

bluegill on May 27, 2013 at 8:18 AM

Some more words… England discusses lowering the age of consent

njrob on May 26, 2013 at 8:59 AM

Interesting factoid at the end of that article. Spain’s age of consent is 13. I wonder how that is working for them? If I had to guess (maybe someone can correct) that law was brought in because they had no particular limit before, that it was so taboo that no law seemed necessary, but now, under the rising tide of pedophilia, they had to set some standards.

virgo on May 27, 2013 at 11:36 AM

What an incredibly childish comment.

bluegill on May 27, 2013 at 8:18 AM

I was merely working on the level of the person I was responding to. :)

alchemist19 on May 27, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Worked out so well for Greece didn’t it?

Skywise on May 26, 2013 at 12:38 AM

What worked for Greece?

alchemist19 on May 27, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Ever heard of “age of consent?”

Kids don’t need to be thinking about sex at all, but the Boy Scouts are saying that not only is it okay for kids to think about sex, but it is okay for them to think about gay sex. That is, it is not okay for a Scout leader to tell a child that it is not okay if he is thinking about gay sex. That would be “hateful,” see?

Anyone who thinks this is okay probably has an invisible millstone hanging around his neck.

gocatholic on May 26, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Yeah…pretty sure 15 year old boys were thinking about sex before the Boy Scouts weighed in on the matter.

galenrox on May 28, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Ever heard of “age of consent?”

Kids don’t need to be thinking about sex at all, but the Boy Scouts are saying that not only is it okay for kids to think about sex, but it is okay for them to think about gay sex. That is, it is not okay for a Scout leader to tell a child that it is not okay if he is thinking about gay sex. That would be “hateful,” see?

Anyone who thinks this is okay probably has an invisible millstone hanging around his neck. – gocatholic on May 26, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Yeah…pretty sure 15 year old boys were thinking about sex before the Boy Scouts weighed in on the matter. – galenrox on May 28, 2013 at 3:32 PM

galenrox, gocatholic must be a bit too old to remember what was like to be a 15 year-old.

SC.Charlie on May 28, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Simple-
My relationship with the Lord.
The end.

bazil9 on May 24, 2013 at 4:33 PM

In your view, is homosexual activity a sin?

DarkCurrent on May 25, 2013 at 4:56 AM

Guess I’ll never get an answer to this.

DarkCurrent on May 29, 2013 at 1:44 PM

DarkCurrent, I will answer for her. It is not a sin. Her true sexual orientation is homosexual. In my opinion, it would be a sin for her to commit to a heterosexual relationship without telling her partner of her orientation. And, I don’t think anyone should be denied to live with a life partner to whom they can share their life and dream.

SC.Charlie on May 29, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Correction……….

DarkCurrent, I will answer for her. It is not a sin. Her true sexual orientation is homosexual. In my opinion, it would be a sin for her to commit to a heterosexual relationship without telling her partner of her orientation. And, I don’t think anyone should be denied to live without a life partner to whom they can share their life and dream.

SC.Charlie on May 29, 2013 at 6:05 PM

SC.Charlie on May 29, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9