| Jul. 24th, 2012 @ 02:23 pm (no subject) |
|---|
It seems that there are a few Eagle Scouts throwing their medals back in the faces of the BSA, in support of the gays who came out and lost their own badges.
It is, of course, being hailed as heroic, "standing up to" the big, bad, bully BSA. Indeed, how dare the Boy Scouts of America stand by their own code of behavior and moral principles when everyone else says they should abandon them.
I'm brought to mind the image of the John Kerry "heroically" throwing his medals over the White House fence.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing at all heroic about swimming with the current. It is the BSA that is taking a heroic stance, sticking by their code, holding their members accountable for their sexual mores and ethics--- and yes, homosexuality is still a choice. No matter how hot and sweaty any particular deviant activity gets you, it is in the end your choice whether or not you participate in it. Not your genes, not your parents, not your upbringing, not your "social environment," not God.
It takes courage to go against the popular zeitgeist. It takes guts and spine to stand with what is morally right, look the entire world in the eye, and say "No, YOU move."
These former eagle scouts are showing none of that. They are gutlessly going along with a loud, tantrum throwing mob that has sworn to ruin anyone that tells them what they are doing is wrong. |
rhjunior
Don't like that limitation? Form your own club.
Liberty. Not Good Enough for the Left since forever.
Furthermore, I was branded (by a local acquaintance, no less) as a hateful bigot who supports a company that helps fund anti-gay hate groups (i.e. counseling centers) that "dehumanize" gays. All for publicly voicing my support of CFA for not backing down under pressure.
All I can say is, if you think my belief in Jesus Christ makes me a hateful person, then I don't really want to know what your definition of "love" is, because it's clearly faulty.
Not having mysteriously vanished is the call to gay activists to pick that day to stage a "kiss-in", because there's nothing like tongue-kissing and fondling each other in front of young children in order to convince people that you deserve to air your sexual preferences in public while forbidding anybody to disapprove.
I checked in on Huckabee's page in time to catch an angry gay activist claiming that we're all hateful bigots who think we're better than everyone else, when in fact nobody is better than anybody else... except that everyone is better than us because we're all hateful bigots.
Yes, that's actually what her argument was.
Oh, and holding any beliefs other than that is now considered "Hate". Just FYI.
-Kire Du'Hai
I believe the common belief for the change was the Church of LDS more or less "buying" the BSA.
So, it's not so much that the BSA is "sticking by their code"; but rather that they changed it, and people are upset by the change. And it's not so much that people are asking the BSA to "abandon their moral principles"; but rather to change them back to what they appeared to have been just 30 years ago.
Still, the BSA has the right to set whatever policies they want. It's not government funded or endorsed, so their business is their own.
For myself, I don't recall religion coming up at all, despite our troop meeting in the basement of a local church(don't remember the denomination). Though, this was in the early 90's, and I'm not sure how much clout the LDS had at that point.
Second, I'm not sure that the "more or less" quotation in your first paragraph implies neutrality on issues relating to sexual orientation, as you strongly imply. It might, but as far back as 1972, I believe a far more reasonable interpretation of that isolated clause is, "Scouting isn't about teaching Sex Ed, i.e., that's for parents and churches."
This may have just been the particular area I lived in, but it's why they were able to overrun the local troop so easily and by sheer numbers and nothing else.
If you wish to argue that this stance is a recent invention, an old quotation from a scoutmaster's handbook that doesn't conflict with the stance isn't going to help your case. Can you actually cite chapter and verse of this different policy from 30 years ago?
"I believe the common belief for the change was the Church of LDS more or less 'buying' the BSA."
Which just goes to show that idiotic prejudices don't die, they simply transfer to a better target. Until JFK, it was a staple belief that any organization that the Roman Catholic Church supported was a puppet of Rome, adjusting its stances to obey the wishes of the Pope. When it became ridiculously obvious that this could not possibly be true, the 'church with the solid top-down hierarchy controls whatever it touches' absurdity transferred to the only other Christian church that follows that practice. Thus the silly 'common' belief that because the Mormon church saw a worthy organization that conformed with that church's values and decided to give it material support, it has 'bought' the BSA.
Morally straight
BSA has been under attack for over 20 years now by the gay community, it's just more open now. I remember when I first saw it happening. BSA was stuck between a rock and a hard place - either allow openly gay members and leaders and eventually get sued out of existence by abused victims, or hold true to Baden-Powell's vision and take the legal, governmental, etc. hits for doing so. Obviously, door #2 was taken.
As the BSA was forced out of schools and parks, the churches started taking them in. The Mormons have been the most active here, but Catholics are close behind and there are plenty of Baptists there too. The leftists and their friendly government bureaucrats probably didn't expect that BSA would become more religious under their persecution, but since the other alternatives spelled extinction, they should have.
Re: Morally straight
BSA has had to make some very strict rules about adult leadership in order to protect the youth that participate. Two deep leadership, annual youth protection courses, and rules about who can sleep in what tent all work to minimize opportunity in the case that a predator slips through the net.
Re: Morally straight
But we're expected to let a homosexual man lead a bunch of teenage boys, or let gay kids bunk up with the straight ones--- or each other---
Re: Morally straight
I look for this comment because I want to see who thinks of this- to start their own. The reason they will not think to start their own is because most of them are not born leaders. Those who think to and do so are born leaders. Those who try to take over another organization with wholly different morals want to depend on the infrastructure that already exists. They think the leaders will fold, and they will be able to take an organization without having to make one. *shrug.* I agree with you %100- if they don't like it, they're free to leave and start their own group.
All homosexuality is, is a fetish, I don't know where they get off thinking they deserve special rights because of it.
:-P )
However, it appears the ATTRACTION is more-or-less genetic, and a function of how certain genes are expressed. (IE, it's not just "Born that way", any more than a fetishistic crossdresser can DECIDE what turns them on.) [Down, Pathia. ;-) We agree mroe than disagree, but it's a speciaized niche, let's be general and try to get people to udnerstand first.]
In addition, we have TONS of things - events, motions, actions, interactions, etc - which can be "classified" as gay or straight or deviant. Being left-handed used to be seen as being automatically evil. Why? Well, right-handed people would shake hands to show they held no ill intent - the sword hand (arm) was empty. OTOH, the left-handers could use a knife quite well, and were already up close and personal....
I have a pack, basically - two dogs. One is a momma's boy; he scent-marks on her clothes. To the point she can't use the bathroom without locking the door. :-) The other knows Daddy is Big Dog. Let's just say he licks me... So changing can be an issue. :-P But it's a DOG thing. It's part of the language of DOGS. To us it's gross. (Yet we have books dedicated to not-dissimilar subjects - even if no one else on here has ever read them.) Kama Sutra comes to mind, and much of Yoga is based in similar forms (tantra, anyone?)
Now, we take that sort of thing into other "categories" - you ever tilt your head to the side a bit while talking to someone? Women might be more aware of doing this - exposing the neck? I KNOW they do it when close to someone they love. It's a submission signal. Makes for attraction in men, too - though most haven't delved in that deep, nor do they care to. But dogs stop fighting when they THROAT the opponent (usually.)
I had a gay roommate in college. Have a gay roommate now. No big deal. Look up Jack Donovan, you'll get some well-written evidence of his "homophobic" stance - "let's get rid of the flamers", to summarize. IE, the pride parades with open-butt leather pants, down main street, with minors in attendance. Just as an example. Being gay? No big deal. CHOOSING to be gay? Well, why bother? But it's your life...
OTOH, CHOOSING to engage in pedophilia? NOT protected, regardless of anything else.
(I have my own views on pedophilia - mostly that it's being misused to harm innocent people < men > - but I'll save that for another time. Suffice it to say, you can't claim girls mature faster than boys, then hold the minor boy responsible for the child his ADULT lover - a teacher, BTW - has. SERIOUSLY, WTF? If she's old enough to engage - willingly - and the body is mature - she needs to accept the risk. Can't penalize a teenage boy as a "sex offender" for RECEIVING a girl's unsolicted photos of whatever, and let her off scott-free. Violation of our Constitution, but no one gives a F*ck.)
But what do I know, I'm just a cynical, cantankerous SOB.
I am of the opposite camp, though, given the marriage state in the US: 50% of FIRST marriages end in divorce, 70% initiated by the woman. For such severe reasons as "I'm Bored."
If "Traditional" marriage (Termed Marriage 1.0) is so corrupted (Marriage 2.0), let the Gays have it! Then go work as a divorce lawyer. :-D
Reality is, only a (vocal) fringe group gives a damn, and they are the only ones who are SPEAKING, so they sound much louder than they would if there were a counterpoint.
Make no mistake - it's no ACCIDENT, either. We've been "civilized" to the point of keeping our mouths shut about damn near EVERYTHING, and we're WELL past the point of no return. All empires crumble from within - people get too rich, too "egalitarian" (Corrupted word, really means elitist snobs, who look down on those who are less "egalitarian" than they are). Reality always re-asserts itself.
How many on here on on their second or third marriage? Or have been divorced and are now living in a shoebox, while she got the house? Are paying 60% of pre-tax monies to an Ex, and then living off the remainder? (And I've heard two results: 1, in poverty to the point of can't pay rent AND eat; OR, they find even then they have MORE MONEY, MORE TIME, and MORE peace of mind than they did when the {ahem} HARPY was with them.) Courts enforce "child support" and alimony, with no accounting of where the money goes; they don't enforce visitation, though - there's no CASH there.
I'm tired, I'm rambling.
Doesn't make the points invalid, though.