NJCubScouter 1389 Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Also, cj and Rooster and others are always talking about "homosexual activists" trying to change the BSA policy. I am sure if you took a survey, you would find that the large majority of people who have expressed opposition to the BSA anti-gay policy aren't gay. Link to post Share on other sites
NJCubScouter 1389 Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 CubsRgr8 says: I find it hard to believe that the 1928 ordinance doesn't grandfather COL and protect it from the Fair Practices ordinance. I would find it hard to believe that it does. How could it? Do you think there's a sentence that says "any anti-discrimination laws that may be passed in the future do not apply?" And besides, the resolution passed in the 20's was not a perpetual, irrevocable grant of land. It was a no-rent lease that under its own terms, could be terminated on a year's notice. The news articles have not been completely clear, but my impression was that the city was giving the year's notice. The fact that the city is motivated to do so by an anti-discrimination policy does not change that fact. If this was a regular long-term lease, say for example a 50-year lease, that had no provision for termination "at will" by the city, I do not think the city would be able to do what it is doing. In effect, the Scout council would be "grandfathered," until the term of the lease expired. Link to post Share on other sites
cjmiam 10 Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Come on. Im not saying that they will necessarily have sex on a campout or during a troop meeting. But what they do in their private life should be none of our business right? Excellent! So Scouting will provide a shopping mall for pedophiles or in New Mexico I guess they would be called homosexuals. Link to post Share on other sites
MarkNoel 10 Posted September 30, 2003 Author Share Posted September 30, 2003 CubsRgr8 writes: > I sent this same request to the reporter at the paper, Linda Harris, but so far no response from her. Sad, I > used to think the press had an obligation to present us with the pertinent facts so that we, the public, > could make informed decisions about public issues. Nowadays, it seems, the press is little more than > yellow jounalism - let's rile up the public so they /buy more papers/watch our broadcast/listen to our > talk show/visit our website/ First, here's what Linda Harris DOES provide us with in her article from last week: """ Last week, the city acknowledged that City Solicitor Nelson A. Diaz had advised the mayor and his staff that the Cradle of Liberty Council was in conflict with the city's fair-practices ordinance because of its policy - dictated by the national organization - of barring homosexuals from leadership roles in the Boy Scouts. The city ordinance bars discrimination based on sexual orientation, religion, ancestry, color and other classifications. The Cradle of Liberty Council is the nation's third-largest council and serves 87,000 youths in Philadelphia, Delaware and Montgomery Counties. A City Council resolution dating to 1928 gave the Boy Scouts free use of city land to build a headquarters at their own expense at 22d and Winter Streets. The building immediately became the property of the city, but the expense of keeping it up fell to the Boy Scouts. That same agreement allowed the city to reclaim the property with a year's notice. """ Based on this, it looks like the agreement in 1928 was not an "ordinance" but simply a "resolution" by the city council. Furthermore, under the terms of this resolution, the land remained city property and the building became city property as soon as it was built. And as NJ has pointed out, it allows the city to reclaim the property with one year's notice. Seems pretty clear. Besides, the person you probably want to talk with isn't Linda Harris, but Nelson A. Diaz -- Philadelphia's City Solicitor who did the legal analysis on this issue for the city. YiS, -Mark Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 cjmiam writes: Come on. Im not saying that they will necessarily have sex on a campout or during a troop meeting. But what they do in their private life should be none of our business right? Excellent! So Scouting will provide a shopping mall for pedophiles or in New Mexico I guess they would be called homosexuals. Only in the same way that Scouting and Venturing allows opposite-sex contact between leaders and youth members now. But you knew that.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy) Link to post Share on other sites
MarkNoel 10 Posted September 30, 2003 Author Share Posted September 30, 2003 cjmiam writes: > So Scouting will provide a shopping mall for pedophiles or in New Mexico I guess they would > be called homosexuals. So... you'll have to excuse me if this sounds a bit sarcastic, but I'm starting to wonder exactly why you feel the need to keep coming up with this sort of needlessly inflammatory and insulting language. I think the whole issue of homosexual vs. pedophile has been hashed through in excruciating detail more than once, and even if you still disagree with the medical and scientific data (not to mention the personal statements and observations of people on this forum), there has still got to be a more friendly, courteous, and kind way of expressing your disagreement, right? That is, presuming your goal is to "discuss" rather than to "provoke." YiS, -Mark Link to post Share on other sites
cjmiam 10 Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Now how in the world is that provoking? I know the truth sometimes does hurt. In New Mexico they are considered homosexuals, but do the same thing in Oregon and they are considered pedophiles. Either sex makes no difference. The point is that Scouting is mostly males. I ran a Venture crew and never even thought of sexual relations with any of the Scouts male or female. I had no interest in them sexually, it would be immoral and also against the law. My problem is with those that have distorted views of morality using the law to their advantage. Such would be the case in New Mexico. Introducing homosexuals into the population of Scouts in New Mexico would surely put more Scouts at risk. Im not sure what the percentage of female youth is in the BSA, but I would have to believe that it is quite small. And I believe most straight and morally sound leaders would have no problem keeping sexual interests out of the equation even with a very good-looking well-developed female participant. Now can the same be said for a homosexual leader with a very good-looking well-developed male participant? And even if you were to say yes (leaving questionable morality out of the equation) you cant argue that it creates a higher potential for such problems and puts more Scouts at risk. Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 cjmiam writes: Im not sure what the percentage of female youth is in the BSA, but I would have to believe that it is quite small. And I believe most straight and morally sound leaders would have no problem keeping sexual interests out of the equation even with a very good-looking well-developed female participant. Now can the same be said for a homosexual leader with a very good-looking well-developed male participant? Why do you think it would be any different than the heterosexual case? And even if the percentage of female youth in the BSA is small, why aren't you up in arms about the possibility of heterosexual contact between youth and adult leaders? You only seem to be concerned when gays are involved, not straights: http://www.sptimes.com/News/050600/NorthPinellas/Report__Police__Explo.shtml Link to post Share on other sites
cjmiam 10 Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Ummmm, because there are more males in Boy Scouts than there are females. My guess is a lot more, thus a perfect shopping mall for homosexuals. Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 But that doesn't explain why you aren't at all concerned about females being subjected to sexual advances of adult leaders. If you have a group of 100 boys and 10 girls on a rock climb, do you ignore the safety requirements for the girls because there are fewer of them? You yourself claim (with no support) that male heterosexual adult leaders can be trusted around girls, but male homosexual adult leaders can't be trusted around boys. But the only reason you offer is your own prejudice. Link to post Share on other sites
cjmiam 10 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 So my views and reasoning are prejudicial? Well of course they are. All moral distinctions by there very nature are prejudicial. I did qualify my statement by singling out those with a distorted view of morality. Your demands for all inclusiveness in my arguments seem to make it appear that I somehow have a double standard or that my reasoning is flawed. You seem to suggest that I would overlook immoral behavior by a heterosexual leader. However, let me assure you, I believe pedophilia is wrong as well. I also believe rape is wrong along with dumping ones RV septic tank on the neighbors flower garden. Just because I support keeping the boys safe doesnt mean that I dont care about keeping the girls safe. Because I left them out of my argument does not mean that I dont feel they need to be protected as well. But Scouting does protect them by insisting that all leaders have high moral integrity. To be honest, I currently dont know a single girl that is a member of the Boy Scouting program. Im sure there probably are some, but certainly not even close to the number of boys in the program. Therefore, the statistical probability of a homosexual seeking companionship with a male Scout is far greater than a heterosexual male seeking a relationship with a female. Ive even seen a handy chart that shows the age of consent to be 13 in New Mexico. Introducing a homosexual into that group with the same sex certainly poses a greater risk than introducing a heterosexual into the same group. You ironically point out that Scouting policy would prohibit such acts, but I have to wonder why that should matter for you when it comes from the same group that you criticize with regard to more restrictive policies on homosexuality? Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 You DO have a double standard; you're concerned about hypothetical homosexual male adults with male youth, but heterosexual male adults with female youth actually happens NOW in the BSA program, yet you're not advocating that the program be changed to protect THEM. You're only concerned about male-male sexual contact, not male-female. Link to post Share on other sites
CubsRgr8 10 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 NJ, It was a no-rent lease that under its own terms, could be terminated on a year's notice. But how do you know any of this? Did you read the text of the 1928 agreement or are you relying on media accounts? I, for one, would like to actually read the text of the 1928 agreement. I did read the Fair Practices ordinance (the text is available through the City's website) and don't see how it directly applies to COL or any other occupant of City property. MarkNoel, I described the 1928 agreement as an ordinance because when I contacted the City Solicitor's office, the staff attorney I spoke with referred to it as an ordinance and informed me that the text of the 1928 agreement is bound in the the 1928 Ordinances Volume, found in the City Archives. Unfortunately, those volumes are not available online, hence my request to Laurie. I indeed want to hear from the reporter, Linda Harris, and not the City Solicitor. I asked her, and her newspaper, to publish the text of both the 1928 agreement and the Fair Practices ordinance, not to provide a legal analysis of the situation. The press has an obligation to provide the public with the facts, so that we are able to form our own opinions, based on these facts. Finally, speaking of facts, the City Solicitor's opinion is just that, an opinion, and should not be construed (that's my weekly vocabulary word) as fact. Should the leadership of COL have the gumption to challenge it in court, the court decision may very well show him to be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Do you have a link to the text of the Fair Practices ordinance? Link to post Share on other sites
NJCubScouter 1389 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 CubsRgr8, I think your interest and energy in doing your own legal research on this subject is admirable, but don't you think the Cradle of Liberty council has its own lawyer? Or at least a lawyer available if it chooses to contest this? But it may be moot. I can think of reasons why a council would choose not to sue the city whose youth it serves, or even threaten to sue, even if the council believes it is correct legally. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now