Jump to content

SmokeyPorterhouse

Members
  • Content Count

    1
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About SmokeyPorterhouse

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

204 profile views
  1. SmokeyPorterhouse

    Be prepared - confused...

    The BSA should have told the WOSM to pound sand. Sex has no place at a BSA hosted event as BSA MANDATED YPT makes ABUNDANTLY clear. I simply do not understand why a policy of no sex at WSJ is unacceptable? How about teaching kids that men and women, GOD FORBID, can participate in an event together WITHOUT having sex?! Wouldn't that be a good lesson for scouts to learn in this day and age of "me too"? If participants violate the rule, they get kicked out - of the WSJ AND the BSA. Very simple. Furthermore, this policy is SO inappropriate when, at the same time, BSA is trying to tell use that going co-ed will not fundamentally affect the mission of Scouting. We are told that the idea of Scouts becoming a "meet-market" are far fetched and crazy talk. Well, seems to me that if you need condoms at your WSJ, you've fundamentally affected Scouting. As to the Snopes article, it is patently ridiculous. They obviously worded their own question to achieve their desired result. If the question was properly phrased it would say something like, "Q: Will the BSA will be distributing condoms at the WSJ? A: Yes. If the BSA is going to attempt the Nuremberg Defense ("we are just following WOSM orders") it's not going to work. This is yet another body blow to the BSA. While I'm not one to make impulsive decisions, this may very well be the last straw for me. Sadly, it's looking like my kids, as well as my time, money, and talents, can be better served and put to use elsewhere.
×