Jump to content

BSA should learn from its own history


Recommended Posts

So in a nutshell, Stop whining about it and do something if you object to it that much........

 

That's kind of harsh, BD, asking the pro-sodomy folks to not be so, well, what's the word? Oh yes! "Gay" about it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ya know Q My world is not as neat and tidy as 99% of the posters here.....you sound like your in the same or similar boat to me.

 

 

Someone posted a figure of 4% of folks are gay and lesbian........So why is this such an issue????

 

 

Harsh...yes......

 

My point is if the gay thing is that big a deal.....Quit, vote with your feet...start a BPSA troop or Spiral scout troop.....the entire athesist and gay thing goes away......

 

 

If the BSA starts losing membership directly because of this they will be forced to address it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh.. That is good Beav!

 

 

The mayor of Boston is fighting to not allow Chik-Fil-A in the city, because of the strict beliefs of the company--will they work to remove the BSA as well?

 

Do yeh feel that's right, CCbyTrickery? Is it OK for da government to try to destroy the business and livelihood of a citizen because the citizen happens to disagree with those in office? Remember, Chik-fil-A is happy to sell to gays, to have gays in its store. Its only "crime" is that da owner happens to have a traditional religious perspective on morality. For that, it's OK if da government tries to destroy his business? This is where the liberal argument runs off da rails and becomes truly despicable.

 

 

Remember they are not kicking them out, they are only not allowing them in..

 

So lets turn this around, chik-fil-A will not hire a gay.. So is it ok for chik-fil-A to destroy this person and his livelihood?..

 

Answer "neither is destroying anyones livelihood, because at this point chik-fil-A doesn't have a buisness there, and no one is working for chik-fil-A.. But.. "Neither is right for no allowing equal opportunity."

 

Now go futher "If a gay is found working at chik-fil-A, they will be fired.. Now let us ask the question. Is it ok for chik-fil-A to destroy this person and his livelihood?..

 

Answer "No, it is not"..

 

If chik-fil-A was being booted out of their established place of buisness, then that would be wrong also.

 

Getting a little taste of what the gay person constantly gets and not liking it one bit, are we Beavah? One of your own, got a door shut on their nose. Sorry the fact Chick-fil-a will take a homosexuals money but not hire them is not treating them equally.. BSA will take contribution money from a homosexual also.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

First and Foremost..

Boy Scouts of America is not a Sexual Education..

 

Our Mission is not to promote any Sexual Lifestyle..

Heterosexual

BiSexual

Gay or Lesbian...

 

Nobody should be teaching any lifestyle..

BSA should be worried about any Leadership discussing it with any Youth member even 2 Deep Leadership...

We are not suppose to be sitting around the Campfire discussing our Sexual preferences with youths..

The Real problem in the World is that everyone is sue Happy..and every freaking time we turn around Someone is sueing on behalf of people who have no problem in the first place..no one speaks for Me except me.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Remember they are not kicking them out, they are only not allowing them in..

 

So lets turn this around, chik-fil-A will not hire a gay.. So is it ok for chik-fil-A to destroy this person and his livelihood?..

 

Answer "neither is destroying anyones livelihood, because at this point chik-fil-A doesn't have a buisness there, and no one is working for chik-fil-A.. But.. "Neither is right for no allowing equal opportunity."

 

Now go futher "If a gay is found working at chik-fil-A, they will be fired.. Now let us ask the question. Is it ok for chik-fil-A to destroy this person and his livelihood?..

 

Answer "No, it is not"..

 

If chik-fil-A was being booted out of their established place of buisness, then that would be wrong also.

 

Getting a little taste of what the gay person constantly gets and not liking it one bit, are we Beavah? One of your own, got a door shut on their nose. Sorry the fact Chick-fil-a will take a homosexuals money but not hire them is not treating them equally.. BSA will take contribution money from a homosexual also."

 

Except that Chik-Fil-A does not discriminate against hiring gay employees. The Boston Mayor wants to punish Chik-Fil-A because the CEO, Dan Cathy, had the effrontery to state his opinion that marriage had a biblical basis, and has used his status as a private citizen to contribute to what he considers pro-family causes. Freedom of speech doesn't fly in Boston, so Mayor Quimby decided it was his right to use city ordinances to enforce his political beliefs:

 

Chick-fil-A doesnt belong in Boston. You cant have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. Were an open city, were a city thats at the forefront of inclusion...Thats the Freedom Trail. Thats where it all started right here. And were not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail.

 

Ironic, no? Boston is all about inclusion, unless you disagree with the new secular consensus. Boston is all about diversity, except for diversity of belief or opinion or religious belief.

 

How does the elected mayor of a city using his political power to punish someone for exercising his First Amendment rights relate to the elected heads of a private organization electing to restrict membership as they see fit? KInd of a tortured analogy, really.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Earth calling moosetracker.... Earth calling moosetracker....

 

Did yeh get a little bit too close to Callooh Callay and get sucked into his anti-reality vortex? :)

 

Chik-fil-A as an employer is subject to da same anti-discrimination laws as any other business in terms of hiring.

 

The only issue is that the owning family is a bunch of Christians who believe in (and actually practice) mixed-sex monogamy. Oh, yah, and they have the audacity to say so in public, and to donate to "anti-gay" groups (meaning Christian groups that they happen to agree with).

 

That's it. They haven't discriminated in employment. They haven't discriminated in serving customers. All they did is the owners "came out" as Christians and admitted they gave money to Christian causes. You know, da thing we used to call free speech? ;)

 

So now that we've reintroduced yeh to reality, is that what yeh really support? Anybody who disagrees with us or who happens to contribute to causes we disagree with should be run out of town on a rail? The mayor of Boston vows to block a business from opening in the city because the business owner expresses a Christian viewpoint in public??

 

Yep, that's da pretty typical liberal approach, eh? Ideas we don't agree with are threatening and must be quashed.

 

Now Chik-fil-A is a big business, eh? They'll survive even if Northeastern University won't let 'em open a shop on their campus because as a liberal university they don't like the viewpoint of the owners. They'll even survive if da Mayor of Boston has his way.

 

But what of the small businesses, eh? The family business that still only has one shop in town, and doesn't have da resources of a large chain with which to try to fight a coercive local government? The small campus store that gets driven out of business because of harassment, just because da owners happen to have Christian views or give to their "anti-gay" church?

 

My question is, where is da liberal version of John McCain, stepping forward to take his fellow Democrat to task for a response and position which is utterly shameful?

 

Beavah

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then I appologize.. You are right, I read the discussion here and drew the wrong conclusion.. If they are open to hiring homosexuals, then they should have the right to their own personal opinion and support the causes they wish to support..

 

I stand corrected, and will agree that would not be fair.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"All they have asked for is the right to quietly express their own viewpoint in terms of their private membership, preferably without harassment..." It is not what they are asking that bothers me. They can go to court and ask for their rights without bothering me. What bothers me is that they asked a den leader to go away and not volunteer because she is a lesbian. It bothers me that I mint recruit such a woman become friends with her, enjoy having her son in our pack, and then someone from council shows up and tells her that she can't be in our pack. That would be a very bad day. It would take years for the pack to recover.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Peregrinator, are you suggesting that at recruiting night, pack leaders inquire into the sexual orientations of each parent who shows up with a boy who is eager to join the pack? Umm, no, I'm not going there.

 

Or are we supposed to somehow divine by looking at them, that this one might be gay while that one is definitely straight? My gaydar really isn't that well tuned.

 

Or do only boys who show up with both mother and father present (with matching wedding bands and the same home address?) to join?

 

Or....well you get the picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I agree with Lisabob, this policy will hurt units who don't inquire, when we are not suppose to inquire. Once the person is part of their scouting community, unless part of some rigid conservative group (which I would hope a homosexual will choose a more liberal group then conservative).. The Council's Gay bouncer brigade, will not be smiled upon and their actions will not be appreciated, as the Adult Leader will be one of their community, one of them, rather the a "homo"..

 

In this case it was the units fault, as she told them straight out her concerns, and was welcomed by CC? SM? not sure one of the key 3.. Then it was the very same person who welcomed her, that got into some other disagreement with her, and decided to use the councils bouncer bragade to get rid of their problem for them by reporting her..

 

The rest of the unit was hurt, by this persons actions, as was the women herself. I would not be surprised if this whole thing caused this pack to self-implode.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the question in my mind is, which values are core to the BSA?

 

I think it's reasonable to state that members should accept that they will follow the Scout Oath and Law, and that they can see it when they sign up.

 

Duty to God, Duty to Country - those are right up front. I'm not worried that we'll be going down some slippery slope.

 

Believing that homosexuality is wrong? That's not obvious anywhere in any BSA material. I don't see how that's a core part of the mission, and I believe that inclusiveness and tolerance, which are stated numerous places, are going to trump this.

 

Likewise, I think you could add girls to the mix. The BSA doesn't say that it strongly believes in single-gender Scouting programs. The name might imply it, but since we already have co-ed Venturing, it's hard to think that adding girls is somehow anathema.

 

Compromising on the core values of the Oath and Law, though - I'm not so worried that's going to happen. Likewise, I hope we never drop the outdoor method - that seems pretty fundamental. I don't think we should allow anti-camping people to earn Eagle. And I'm not too worried about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really - "pro-sodomite"? "Next you will let in the pedophiles?" "Through out Morally Straight?" "Oddball churches"

 

I guess I can respond in kind:

 

"I do so love it when the Klan patrol gets together to post. No doubt Scouting was better when it was just white Christians from approved churches, before the BSA accepted the blacks, the Jews and other undesireables. It must be tough for you boys to get your white robes cleaned up after a campout. No doubt your Biblically submissive wives take care of that for you."

 

Do you really think that is the attitude of those of us who want Local Control? That we want to abandon Morally Straight and bring in the child molesters?

 

On the contrary - we want to UPHOLD Morally Straight and even more embrace Reverent to respect the many faiths out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All - please forgive my last post. I took many of the extremely offensive statements, and on top of that spent 2 hours last night trying to keep a parent and Scout in my unit. I think I lost the fight - they aren't willing to stay in the BSA due to the recent announcements. Some of you might not think that this is having an impact, but I am already dealing with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...