Well this is it. Scouting in the U.S. may very well end this year thanks to the homosexuals. In May, the BSA will decide whether or not to allow gays to be members. If they do not do this, the cultural Marxists will have lost another rare battle, and the left will scream and cry about it, while those of us in Scouting will continue to raise our sons in the program.
If the BSA decides to allow gays in, it will be the end of it. Why? Because all the Christian churches and the Mormons will pull out of the organization. That is the vast majority of scouts, BTW. The Girl Scouts long ago became a group that endorses feminism, premarital sex, abortion, and other societal ills, and the cultural Marxists won't rest until they can bring the Boy Scouts down too.
I say, the gays should start their own group, and see how many people want to send their sons out camping with them.
The BSA has already had plenty of problems with boys be molested over the years, and has gone to great lengths to prevent such things. All adults are required to follow certain guidelines when interacting with the boys. Do I believe that gay men would not be able to abide by these rules? Most would, I think, but many would not, given the history of the issue. But that isn't the point.
The point is that for over 100 years, the BSA has worked to help raise young men to be good, moral, ethical men with a certain level of skills and experience in leadership. They won't be able to do that when a bunch of the adult leaders are wanting to bugger the scouts while they're out camping! This isn't Sparta, and letting gay men into the BSA is madness.
UPDATE:
Yep, just found out yesterday that since our Cub Scout Pack and Boy Scout Troop are sponsored by a church, if the BSA national changes this policy, the church is going to dissolve us. Why? Because even if BSA allows local groups to determine their own policies regarding gays in leadership, that opens up all these local groups to frivolous, costly lawsuits.
So thanks a lot, all you damned militant faggots out there. You couldn't just be gay and leave the rest of us alone, you had to keep pushing and keep pushing for "equal rights" to the point that it takes away everyone else's rights.
9 comments:
A male friend of mine, when we were discussing joining the boy scouts, said he wanted to be a girl scout.
I asked him what the hell for?
He told me to go scout for whatever I wanted, he wanted to go scout for girls.
I know... pretty lame.
But not near as lame as letting queers into the scouts. No, I don't call them "gay".
They're not gay, they're queer.
From Wikopedia:
Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities that are not heterosexual, heteronormative, or gender-binary.
Crud...
Now I gotta look up "heteronormative" and "gender-binary".
“Do I believe that gay men would not be able to abide by these rules? Most would, I think, but many would not, given the history of the issue. But that isn't the point.”
I disagree. That is a very important point. The scouts have been sued several times over boys being molested by gays. This has been an issue they have dealt with for a great number of years. Never in the organizations history has the involvement of gays proven to be positive for the group as a whole. Further the risk to the boys involved is too great.
I agree with your point about the moral upbringing of boys. In todays post moral world, this will have no meaning to the public. I have no faith in the Mormons standing against homosexuality. Which is too bad because they are the scouts biggest sponsoring organization. Here’s hoping the boy scouts will stand firm.
You really think the Mormons don't care to stand against homos? What about the whole Prop 8 thing in Mexifornia?
You might be right: I heard a comment from one of my scout executive guys that he was surprised at the reaction from the Mormon BSA board members. I don't know completely what he meant.
And, I'm not sure about the question of whether or not gay scoutmasters could resist temptation if the BSA kept in place the Youth Protection Training rules that they have now. They are pretty strict, but of course they are only as strict as the Troop/Pack/Crew leadership makes them. Basically, this means that no adult is alone with any child that is not their son at any time without another adult present. And the whole point of YPT is that the boys should be protected from being molested, because they are in the program to learn, not to be buggered.
------------
This really pisses me off. My younger son is a Tiger Cub this year, and I was looking forward to participating in Scouts with both boys for a long time. This whole thing may kill the BSA, and we'll have to do something else.
"You really think the Mormons don't care to stand against homos?"
When Capt Underroos was running I caught part of an interview with a Mormon bishop on the raido, the bishop said that homosexuality wasn't an issue for the Mormon church. I took that to mean that it was OK for Mittens to take the pro butt sex political stand that he had. If that is the case, I don't expect them to put up to much of a fuss for the scouts.
Astrosmith: "The point is that for over 100 years, the BSA has worked to help raise young men to be good, moral, ethical men with a certain level of skills. They won't be able to do that with a bunch of men wanting to bugger them."
The fact of the matter is that the BSA has always had gay men in it, they just haven't been open about it. And I'm not just talking about those who have molested boys, either -- I mean the ones who served honorably and kept their sexuality separate from their responsibilities. You may scoff that there have been any such creatures, but I assure you that they existed in the BSA throughout its history just as they existed in the US military prior to the repeal of DADT. They are serving even now.
Res Ipsa: "Never in the organizations history has the involvement of gays proven to be positive for the group as a whole."
See above. The claim may be valid to the group as a whole, but there have been individuals who have provided a positive influence, just as there are straight men who have provided a negative influence.
I don't think that they should allow homosexuals, if they don't want to. But that won't stop all of them from joining, anyway.
Actually, WB, I am quite certain that there are and have been gay men serving in the BSA as leaders, and have been able to keep their sexuality out of it. If I can interact with women who aren't my wife without bring sexuality into it, then I'm sure gay men can do the same. I just would prefer that they keep it to themselves and away from the boys.
What's odd is that most men who are in Scouts as leaders have their own sons in the program. Are some of these men latent homosexuals? Are their wives and sons mere beards? Good Lord, I hope not but I am sure it's likely.
This reminds me...
Lord Baden Powell himself has been accused of being a homosexual. I have read that he made his boyish looking young wife wear scout uniforms, etc. Of course, that could all be gay propaganda. I mean, after all, Baden Powell was British, that doesn't mean he was gay.
"there have been individuals who have provided a positive influence, just as there are straight men who have provided a negative influence."
Your statement is true as far as it goes. If I was running the BSA, (sans my religious objections) I would have to look at what the odds are for a problem with this group. In the organizations history and experience it has been quite high. When you have the responsibility of protecting those in your care from predators, its best to eliminate the potential problem rather than try to monitor them from inside the organization.
In this case the practical solution to the problem is to keep sexual deviants out of the organization. It happens to be the correct moral solution as well.
Res ispa:In this case the practical solution to the problem is to keep sexual deviants out of the organization. It happens to be the correct moral solution as well.
Yes, exactly. If you have a known sexual deviant, you can exclude them from the group. If you have an unknown sexual deviant, then you have to have rules in place to prevent them from being able to act on their deviant urges. You can't just rely on the rules to keep the known deviants in check.
This is not to say that I don't like gays or am scared of them or hate them or anything. I just don't want them anywhere near my sons or anyone else's sons in the Scouting program.
I have known two gay men well enough to have them tell me their views on gay men and boys. The first was blatantly pro-access because it was his stated purpose to get boys to “experiment” as young as possible. He meant young as in 6 or 7. The second was a close friend of mine for several years. He was against gay men having anything to do with boys, ever, for the same reasons that first guy had. He felt that homosexuality was a learned behavior and that it was wrong to “recruit” boys.
I realize that those two may not represent the entire gay community, but why take a chance that someone who wants to “recruit” boys to “experiment” will openly join your Troop?
It seems to me that it is logical that the kind of gay who wants to “recruit” would look for opportunities to get close to kids for that purpose.
Post a Comment