-
Shah Na Na
June 17, 2013 | 23 comments
-
Religious Upset Over Drones
June 3, 2013 | 24 comments
-
Boy Scouts Embrace Dull Conformity
May 28, 2013 | 149 comments
-
Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report
May 17, 2013 | 117 comments
-
Transsexual Flights from Reality
May 3, 2013 | 91 comments
Special Report
Boy Scouts Renew Debate Over Sex
New pressure is being applied on church-sponsored scout troops to get with the times.
The Boy Scouts of America’s (BSA) National Council meeting in May will decide whether to abandon the BSA’s long-time ban on open homosexuality. Early last month, the BSA executive board, confronted by corporate threats to defund, had planned to proceed with a new policy of allowing sponsors of local Boy Scout troops to determine their own policy. Widespread protests, especially from church sponsors, who host 70 percent of Boy Scout troops, persuaded the BSA board, which includes several corporate CEOs pushing for a more permissive policy, to defer to the 1,400 member National Council.
Later in February, the leadership of United Methodist Men (UMM), which is the second largest religious sponsor of Boy Scouts, shifted from earlier statements indicating acceptance of a BSA local option and instead asked the BSA not to proceed with a policy change. The UMM noted having received “many phone calls and emails” since the BSA’s proposed policy change became public. Many threatened to quit BSA as leaders or donors if BSA adopted the proposed new policy, and many were “angry” that churches were not better consulted about the policy shift. The letter reports that a “few” expressed support for the policy change, but overall the response has been “overwhelmingly” negative.
“This potential shift from BSA places UMM’s primary goal, our core value — expansion and retention — at risk,” the UMM declared. “If approved, scouting programs would decrease, and new programs would be harder to begin due to the uncertainty this proposal has generated.” The UMM complained there had not been adequate time for United Methodist Men and churches to consider the “legal and spiritual consequences” of a BSA shift.
Unlike the Methodists, the Mormons, as the largest religious sponsor of Boy Scouts, have remained publicly silent though presumably privately disapproving of a policy change. Roman Catholics are the third-largest religious sponsor, and the head of their scouting ministries had carefully warned against a policy change before the February board meeting. The Southern Baptists, who are the sixth largest church host, have continued to be outspoken against any change.
Other pro-family groups have been collecting petitions and urging the BSA to stand firm. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which litigates in defense of religious freedom, has recently warned BSA that its proposed local option would potentially remove protection that courts have given BSA’s national policy. Absent a clear national standard, ADF warns, BSA would be vulnerable to litigation. “It is not legally necessary for BSA to sacrifice its history or its principles in the face of growing threats,” ADF told BSA in its appeal.
Meanwhile, BSA has emailed 1.1 million adults involved with Scouting a survey about the controversy, offering six theoretical scenarios absent the ban on homosexuality, soliciting reactions. First the survey asks respondents about their support for the current requirements that “prohibit open homosexuals” membership or leadership. And it asks if this policy is a “core value” of scouting as found in the Scout Oath and Law.
The survey’s first suggested scenario asks if a 15-year-old “openly gay Scout” should be permitted to share a tent with a heterosexual boy on an overnight camping trip. The second scenario asks about a “gay male troop leader, along with another adult leader” taking “adolescent boys on an overnight camping trip.” The third scenario asks whether a 16-year-old should receive his Eagle Scout award after revealing his homosexuality. The fourth scenario asks whether a gay youth minister at a gay friendly church hosting a Scout troop should serve as a Scoutmaster. The fifth scenario asks whether an “openly gay youth” should be refused membership in a Scout troop hosted by a church that “believes that homosexuality is wrong.” The final scenario asks about the propriety of a first grade Tiger Cub’s lesbian mother serving as den mother of a troop hosted by a church fine with homosexuality.
After the scenarios, the survey again asks the same questions about support for the BSA’s current policy. It also notes that “different organizations that charter Boy Scout troops have different positions on the morality of homosexuality,” and asks whether charter groups should be allowed to follow their own beliefs “when selecting Boy Scout members and adult leaders, if that means there will be different standards from one organization to the next.”
The survey concludes by asking: “What is your greatest concern if the policy remains in place and openly gay youth and adults are prohibited from joining Scouting?” And: “What is your greatest concern if the policy is changed to allow charter organizations to make their own decisions to admit openly gay Scouts and leaders?”
Is the survey biased towards pushing respondents against the BSA’s current policy, or does it accurately reflect the conflict? It’s debatable. But probably most respondents, as current or former participants in Scouting, either way will oppose a policy change. Southern Baptist leader Richard Land, in publicly defending the policy, has asked whether heterosexual men should be allowed to escort teenage girls on overnight camping trips. He cites frail human nature as constantly vulnerable to moral failure, hence protections are constantly needed against temptation, such as permitting homosexual men to lead Scout troops. Probably most BSA supporters, even in the current cultural climate of hyper tolerance, understand the core argument for the BSA’s current standard.
Beyond the Boy Scouts, at stake is whether any private organization beyond religious institutions shall be permitted by the current culture to uphold traditional sexual ethics. And ultimately are churches themselves, even if legally protected by the First Amendment, safe from hostility and growing intolerance against traditionalism? A lot may depend on whether the BSA in May and beyond is willing to forego some corporation donations and endure adversity in defense of not just its members but also all Americans standing against the increasingly oppressive sexual zeitgeist.
Photo: UPI
About the Author
Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century. You can follow him on Twitter @markdtooley.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (178) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Mark Tooley
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/03/15/boy-scouts-renew-debate-over-s
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Aristocat| 3.15.13 @ 6:28AM
Oh, yes, by all means, let's have Sodomite Scoutmasters....What a great idea !
AlanAnti-RoveCheneyBrooks | 3.15.13 @ 10:52PM
Aristocat,
if you can demonstrate the number of sodomite scoutmasters in the BSA is comparable to the percentage of sodomite priests, you'd have a point. But very few become Scoutmasters because of gay-interest. They'd get blueballs, for one thing; prostatitis.
You know quite well how anti-Catholics inflated the number of boys(mostly 16-18 year olds) who were bedded by priests. Take away the baseless lawsuits and you have >1%. Which you still have, BTW; in every denomination, every secular group as well, there are always a few who can't keep their trousers on.
mzk| 4.21.13 @ 8:53AM
So we can have male Girl Scout troop leaders? Boys and girls sharing tents?
Please differentiate.
mishal762| 3.16.13 @ 8:21PM
Its definitely the most-financially rewarding Ive ever done. Make money with Google. $85 an hour! I work two shifts 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening. And whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids I follow this great link Google.fab17.cℴm
Appleby| 3.15.13 @ 6:44AM
So let me get this straight (as it were): The very same Marching Mommies who relentlessly scream about the homosexual problem that the Roman Catholic Church had when Vatican II opened the doors to "openly gay" priests, is now proposing that ALL churches open the door and invite the very same problems? Is this a policy crafted by the Trial Lawyers Association, or what?
AlanAnti-RoveCheneyBrooks | 3.15.13 @ 10:58PM
"Is this a policy crafted by the Trial Lawyers Association, or what?"
Now you are cooking with gas. Take Michael Jackson: unlike Roman Polanski, no evidence exists Jacko was guilty as charged. However lawyers and clients raked it in. Fatty Arbuckle was railroaded in the same way-- difference is, attorneys nine decades ago weren't part of celebrity culture and had no TV programs to appear on, few books to write.
Joellen| 3.15.13 @ 7:22AM
Appleby, your question can only be answered with the logical answer among the sane, that these marching mommies would fit the defination of insanity.
To put ones child in harms way for the sake of political correctness, hmm where is the wise King Solomon today to show these mommies their error in good judgment.
SUBVET| 3.15.13 @ 8:18AM
control....control.....control
C. Vernon Crisler | 3.15.13 @ 10:41AM
Just as the military is now the home of women in combat and perverts on parade, perhaps the Boy Scouts can allow girls and gays into the fold. That would satisfy the Frums and Goldbergs of the world, wouldn't it?
Stephie| 3.15.13 @ 11:35AM
Some boy scout troops do in fact let girls into their troops where I live in Eastern VA. I heard the scout master call the troop by another name, something to do with wilderness hiking and out doors activities. But yeah, that girls were allowed in because the girls scouts don't do such things as camping. They're busy being indoctrinated by Planned Parenthood and how it's their right to get an abortion.
TLP| 3.15.13 @ 1:00PM
They should start their own Group.
They can call it: The Planned Parenthood Procreation Prevention Patrol.
Penis.
TLP| 3.15.13 @ 3:42PM
Why aren't you at The Contest?
Monday's Wes Welker Story.
JFGalt| 3.18.13 @ 12:44PM
Those are Venture Scouts - they are different from Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts.
mzk| 4.21.13 @ 8:55AM
"Gam Li Gam Lach Lo Yih'ye".
"I won't have him and neither will you!"
The Flase Mother is now settign policy. (C.F. The original story.)
DRA2012| 3.15.13 @ 7:27AM
It would appear that once again "they" are attempting to violate the 1st amendment right of the thousands of scouts to associate with whom they wish to associate. I think if the BSA are forced to change their core beliefs such as this, it will destroy the organisation.
mike 3/505| 3.15.13 @ 7:44AM
I think if the BSA are forced to change their core beliefs such as this, it will destroy the organization.
Which is the ultimate objective of the leftists. Church, Scouting, Fatherhood....are all bastions of normal society and as such, are obstacles to the leftists and their agenda.
DRed| 3.15.13 @ 10:59AM
I didn't realize the 1st amendment protected you from criticism from your corporate sponsors. Probably because it doesn't.
Quartermaster| 3.15.13 @ 12:49PM
No one is claiming what you are asserting. But that's just a leftist doofus, like you, trying to change the subject.
The corporate types have no right to the backlash that can come as a result of trying to pressure a traditionalist organiztion like BSA. Levis has lost a ton of business because of their moonbat ways, as have a number of other businesses that put depravity before wise business practices.
DRed| 3.15.13 @ 1:33PM
Try reading the post two above mine.
TLP| 3.15.13 @ 3:43PM
Try reading the Article.
JFGalt| 3.18.13 @ 1:15PM
It's all about destroying from within. Peodophiles preying on young boys are gay they are not heterosexual. Bisexuals are gay. Hence the policy blocking gays. I think at the very least the leadership needs to be non-gay. They are there to set the example. A scout that comes out as gay needs to be treated as a separate issue and should probably be a local issue. I'm torn on this one as I hate to see some boy excluded but then he is in a position of setting a proper example for the younger boys and being gay doesn't set that example. Canada's version of the BSA open the doors to the gays and what happened. People left and it is now a shadow of its former self. The gays won by destroying it. They can't stand the BSA because it promotes the family as a hard working married couple (or single parent working doubly hard) that has kids and lives responsibly. The outsiders need to validate their own perversions, destruction and murders. It's sad that our kids have become the battleground.
CJW| 3.15.13 @ 7:44AM
You have to assume that some homosexual men will be sexually attracted to boys so why would you have homosexual men as scoutmasters on overnite camping trips and other events?
It is the same argument that some heterosexual men will be attracted to girls so why would you have such men in the Girl Scouts accompanying such girls on overnite camping trips and other events?
I recently attended a ceremony for a scout who was received the Eagle badge, and was impressed by the ceremony and the work that scouts have to do. The scouts were ages 16 to 18.
Would you send a heterosexual man on camping trips to supervise girls ages 16 to 18?
Bob K| 3.15.13 @ 8:01AM
This is so evidently a simple matter of common sense that it makes one wonder about the mental health of the people who who want to overturn the ban.
And Mr. Tooley does not help his arguments here by neglecting to name the Corporate CEO's on the board who are pushing to make the rules more permissive.
Let their names and that of their companies become public and see if there are consequences that come from it in their bottom line!
SUBVET| 3.15.13 @ 8:21AM
Ya ..... where's Mr. Lord when you need him.
Bandido| 3.15.13 @ 1:44PM
Because homosexuality is far more militant and predatory than heterosexuality. The literature is extensive and exhaustive on this topic and not open to debate.
JP| 3.15.13 @ 7:44AM
So, the vast majority of scouts and their families are Christian/religious, and homosexuality is aborrent to them. On the other hand, a few big buck supports and the Trial Lawyers are demanding that BSA open the floodgates to gays. What shall the BSA do?
If the BSA caves it is finished. The Roman Catholic parishes will be forced to remove their sponsorships; the Mormons and Southern Baptists are in the same boat. Don't know about the Methodists; but, they've become gay friendly over the years. The Roman Catholic Church found out just how dangerous it is to mix homosexuality and any ministries connected to the young. Shall we go through the horror again?
R Martin| 3.15.13 @ 8:02AM
Those six theoretical scenarios in the BSA survey remind me of the Seinfeld episode in which Kramer wants to establish a living will. His attorney, played by Ben Stein, presents increasingly absurd plug-pulling hypotheticals. It’s all a laugh.
“…whether any private organization beyond religious institutions shall be permitted by the current culture…”
Permitted by current culture? Good grief, what are we coming to in this society if a private organization, acting legally, becomes oppressed by current culture? Mr. Tooley’s piece is quite clear—those people involved in scouting overwhelmingly oppose having the thin end of the homosexuality wedge driven into their organization. Sponsor corporations may accept the oppression of current culture for financial reasons; individuals focusing on the proper rearing of young men should not.
TLP| 3.15.13 @ 8:22AM
I'm assuming that you've been over to Wes Welker's House.
TLP| 3.15.13 @ 8:13AM
I don't get it. There's "Pressure" from Corporate Sponsors to let Pole Munching Fudge Packers into the Boy Scouts? Pressure from Outside Groups to let guys who have Sex with other Guys, and wear Women's Clothes and Makeup whenever they step outta the Closet and into the Night, MENTOR our young sons? You want the Fox to sleep in the Henhouse with the Chickens?
That's a buncha Bullspit.
The first thing one is taught in the Boy Scouts is Honour, Duty, Courage, and Fealty to God. Not Ballroom Dancing, Colour Coordinating, or how to relax your Throat Muscles when eating a Footlong Hot Dog.
Let them start their own Club. They have their own Bars. They have their own Parade. They have their own Disease. Let them have their own Youth Group. They can call themselves The Butt Rangers. Or, The Anal Avengers. Or, The Flaming Fashionistas. What's the problem?
Everywhere ya look, everybody's doing their own thing. Everybody's got their own Caucus in Congress. Everybody's got their own Club or Studies Program in College. Everybody's got an Anti-Defimation Group, a Lobbying Group, or a member of Congress who is only there for one reason: To push for His or Her GROUP.
In Golf you're told to "Hit away from trouble". Don't tempt fate with a shot that most of the time, is gonna end up badly. This idea is 1,000 Lawsuits waitin to happen.
I Guarantee you that you can find New Funding, no problem.
You bend over now? It won't be YOU taking it Up the @zz.
It'll be the Kids.
Cobalt| 3.15.13 @ 8:56AM
Cub Scout>Boy Scout >Eagle Scout>Flamingo Scout
Bandido| 3.15.13 @ 1:45PM
Excellent!
TLP| 3.15.13 @ 3:44PM
Contest at Monday's Wes Welker Story.
Join us.
TNcracker | 3.15.13 @ 7:44PM
You are the best! Wish I had your way with words. Over at PJMedia yesterday Vodka Pundit titled his piece "Gay Haters Gotta Hate", then proceeded to insult commenters with nasty retorts. I would have loved to read what you could offer up! PJMedia has gotten a little weird lately.
SUBVET| 3.15.13 @ 8:26AM
you misspelled "queer"
SUBVET| 3.15.13 @ 8:34AM
Wikipedia....Queer
Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities [1] that are not heterosexual, heteronormative, or gender-binary. In the context of Western identity politics the term also acts as a label setting queer-identifying people apart from discourse, ideologies, and lifestyles that typify mainstream LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex) communities as being oppressive or assimilationist.
This term is generally controversial because it was reappropriated to an extent in the 1990s from its use as an anti-gay epithet. Furthermore, some LGBT people disapprove of using queer as a catch-all because they consider it offensive, derisive or self-deprecating given its continuous use as a form of hate speech. Other LGBT people may avoid queer because they associate it with political radicalism, or simply because they perceive it as the faddish slang of a "younger generation."
TLP| 3.15.13 @ 1:05PM
This, from a guy who served on a Ship that looks like a Penis.
SUBVET| 3.15.13 @ 7:14PM
Tim ......from one penis to another a sub is referred to as a boat not a ship.
But you knew that........fly boy.
Bandido| 3.15.13 @ 2:09PM
Faggot is more colloquial and colorful, wouldn't you agree?
Pecos Pete| 3.15.13 @ 8:56AM
As Colonel Mike states, more or less, the leftists would be delighted to bury the Boy Scouts and replace them with The Obama Scouts wearing blue uniforms with badges awarded based on various tests related to diversity. Sort of like what's happening to the military.
TLP| 3.15.13 @ 3:46PM
You left out the Red Bandana.
Stormy| 3.15.13 @ 9:01AM
Next, Sandra Fluke will be encouraging them to accept transgenders. But, in that case, are they boys or girls?
Purp| 3.15.13 @ 10:41AM
Can VP Dick Cheney's daughter Mary be a Girl Scout Leader, or wasn't she raised correctly?
TLP| 3.15.13 @ 1:08PM
Girls are different.
When they "Get" together, it's HOT!
But, you wouldn't understand.
Purp| 3.15.13 @ 4:29PM
You really don't realize how lame and high school mentality you are do you?
I thought you liked doing the dirty with boys?
The Only Good Democrat| 3.16.13 @ 3:12PM
Warning: Purp is in projection mode
SFCMikeJ| 3.15.13 @ 6:38PM
Purp,
I try to ignore you, really I do. What a lame straw man augment. From what I have heard and read the young Ms. Cheney she would make a fine Girl Scout leader. I know some gay men that would make outstanding Boy Scout leaders. That, however, is not the question. The question is; should we allow openly homosexuals, particularly male adults, into the Boy Scouts AS A MATTER OF POLICY.
We already know what happens in a captive environment when homosexual men at their sexual peak mentor to young males. See the Catholic Church and the outcry from the left at what the church permitted.
As Bugs Bunny would say: "what a maroon."
Mike Johnston
SFC USA (RET)
Purp| 3.15.13 @ 10:51PM
How foolish you are. Do you even realize you contradicted yourself? LMFAO ....
"The question is; should we allow openly homosexuals, particularly male adults, into the Boy Scouts AS A MATTER OF POLICY."
Contradicted by : " We already know what happens in a captive environment when homosexual men at their sexual peak mentor to young males. See the Catholic Church and the outcry from the left at what the church permitted."
Since when are Priests that molested boys "Openly Homosexual "as a matter of policy?
It is the very NON-OPENNESS that makes all hide the truth from the disinfectant of visibility.
Whether it's shame, a thrill, or the danger of getting caught that makes people do things in secret they wouldn't do in the light of day - IF they didn't have to hide, the incidents you profess to worry about would be reduced, if not stopped completely.
As a former military man, you should know better. People look up to us. Act like it.
Purp
Capt. USAF RET...
The Only Good Democrat| 3.16.13 @ 3:16PM
I get it. You weren't out and were abusing lower ranking individuals. Somebody should have done something about back then or now for that matter. We don't need to clutter up the courts with these matters.
CLD| 3.17.13 @ 8:39AM
Somebody ought to do something about your stupdity as your reply to Purp makes absolutely no sense.
Rhoetus| 3.17.13 @ 9:08PM
We all know that adolescent males have a high sex drive. Sexual relations have no place in the Scouting movement. The temptation would be too great to allow open gays to either serve as leaders or members of the Boy Scouts.
Stephie| 3.15.13 @ 11:43AM
Actually, this is exactly what she's doing.
Purp| 3.15.13 @ 10:53PM
And, they aren't people ? Next they'll be letting women be in charge... Oh no, the sky is falling...
The Only Good Democrat| 3.16.13 @ 7:42PM
They are mentally ill people? They need help other than castrations. They have no business leading young men. Neither do men that view their waste removal system as a playground.
CLD| 3.17.13 @ 8:41AM
And yet you view your waste removal system as the place to keep your brains. A sure sign that even a lobotomy wouldn't help you.
CLD| 3.15.13 @ 9:20AM
The final paragraph of Tooley's piece has to be one of the most ironic in any op-ed I've ever read.
All those forces who today insist upon upholding "traditional sexual ethics" were the enforcers of an extremely "oppressive sexual zeitgeist" in the past.
It is beyond ironic to fret about how these forces are safe from the power of the now-dominant culture (nothing ever is) when said culture simply looks down upon irrational worries about "Sodomite Scoutmasters" (Aristocrat) being in charge of groups of boys -- as if grown men aren't left in charge of boys and girls all the time.
And people wonder why 'cultural conservatism' is in trouble.
Butch| 3.15.13 @ 3:01PM
First, the "now-dominant" culture is dominant only in the left-wing media, which carefully separates separates "gay" from all revolting homosexual practices, such as fisting, golden showers, golden enemas, and gerbiling. The culture remains disgusted by these mentally-ill perversions.
Second, as to "irrational worries about 'Sodomite Scoutmasters' (Aristocrat)," does the name Jerry Sandusky come to mind. I believe the "now-dominant" culture sentenced him to prison for the rest of his natural life.
CLD| 3.15.13 @ 10:02PM
Uh, Butch ... Is that really your name?
Whether it's your given name or just a chosen pseudonym I find it yet more irony that my post gets a reply filled with still more anti-homosexual rubbish from someone named 'Butch.' (As in 'butch' vs. 'fem' gays.)
The now-dominant culture is certainly not dominant only in left-wing media -- unless you think we are a contraceptive and abortive culture only amongst the left-wing media types (for just one example).
Fisting and golden showers ARE NOT homosexual practices. They are simply sexual practices that some people (especially those into sado-masochism) enjoy. The sexes of the participants are not relevant. (I have no clue what 'gerbiling' is.)
The only thing revolting here, Butch, is the hateful prejudice of a nasty bigot like yourself.
CLD| 3.15.13 @ 10:10PM
No, Jerry Sandusky does not come to mind.
The crimes of a pedophile who targeted pre-pubescents has nothing to do with homosexual men being in charge of children and teenagers. Anyone can be a pedophile: Sandusky had a wife; he wasn't an open homosexual. There is no reason to think of him as a homosexual at all. He was a pedophile.
If you're too stupid to know the difference that is your problem, not mine.
Rhoetus| 3.17.13 @ 9:12PM
Jerry Sandusky was a homosexual-pedophile to be exact.
CLD| 3.18.13 @ 5:37PM
You've increased the precision of the conversation with this info how?
The point at issue was the allowing of open and honest homosexuals as scout leaders.
Purp| 3.15.13 @ 10:56PM
Hahahaha ... you really are weird ... Are you unaware of Sado-Masochism between Adult heterosexuals? You think Nipple rings and pins were exclusively homosexual? LMFAO at your ignorance.
Face it... Conservadum ideas are stale, lame and irrelevant. Culture moves forward, it doesn't sit still - get on the train or be left behind.
Occam's Tool| 3.16.13 @ 3:02PM
Nipple rings and pins are signs of progress how, exactly?
(Son, my knowledge of these things surpasses yours considerably. I am an UCLA trained Boarded Psychiatrist.)
CLD| 3.17.13 @ 8:54AM
Now how did I miss this before now?
OT, you may be a certified psychiatrist trained at UCLA, but those credentials mean nothing here.
In the comments to Kyle Peterson's "Sen. Portman’s Gay Son Prompts Reversal on Same-Sex Marriage" you congratulated Bandido for calling male homosexuals "half-men" and for saying that "the vast majority of normal men" would always hate "the homosexual lifestyle," did you not. Was that wondeful display of erudition the result of your time at UCLA?
Purp said nothing about piercings of any kind being a sign of progress. He merely implied -- correctly -- that such things also practiced by heterosexuals (which is what I said about the paraphilias Butch mentioned). Your competence as a therapist is not on display here.
crankitup| 3.15.13 @ 10:10AM
The socialists want to destroy all things moral and good in this country, so they can take total control of our Beautiful Country, and replace freedom, liberty and morality ,with a communist/socialist utopia, except for the elites of the party. They are getting close to a total take over for our own good!
Purp| 3.15.13 @ 10:31AM
Maybe you should ask VP Dick Cheney and Sen. Rob Portman about their own gay children and how they are destroying "all things moral and good in this country, so they can take total control of our Beautiful Country, and replace freedom, liberty and morality ,with a communist/socialist utopia, except for the elites of the party" .
You must be a bigot.
ejp| 3.15.13 @ 10:56AM
Portman is just another example of a quintessential GOP squish devoid of principles who in this instance shamefully reveals how shallow his own line of thinking was if he can now decide to change his position based on a reasoning that defines shallowness to a tee. If I had a son or a relative who did something wrong, am I supposed to change my view of right and wrong out of love for a child? That's the most fundamental violation of Christ's call how one must be willing to put aside all other considerations, including family when deciding to follow him. Portman's thinking is as shallow as the person who changes his/her religion to marry someone of another faith. It means he was never serious about his beliefs in the first place and those who voted for him expecting some reliability on an important issue have been suckered once again.
Purp| 3.15.13 @ 11:16AM
I would stand by my son or daughter and love them no matter what... you treat your children less than that? Seriously?
Oh, and if you want to bring Jesus into this.. please point me to ANYTHING he said against homosexuality ... "Love thy neighbor as you would have him love you" comes to mind and "Judge not, lest ye be judged" ...
And, just exactly what is so great about principles when people get hurt by strict adherence to them? Especially people you love?
Even Dick "Darth Vader" Cheney wouldn't agree with you.
ejp| 3.15.13 @ 11:23AM
The issue is not one of "love" of child, which is the phony straw man in this issue. To "love" them does not mean I kowtow and cave in on a more important fundamental principle of devotion to God's law.
And you are also very ignorant of the New Testament. The Apostle Paul, whom Jesus saw fit to appear to on the Road to Damascus to transform and personally charge with spreading the Good News to the Gentile community, *explicitly* condemns homosexual behavior at the same time in the same passage he also lists other sinful conduct that today we still regard as sinful conduct which reveals that in any reading of the Scripture, it is regarded as a sin no different than any other sin. Those who want to argue and say that it is not a sin are those who want to rewrite the Bible to suit their own personal agendas and not because they have any deep regard for it to begin with.
Arnie| 3.15.13 @ 12:18PM
" To "love" them does not mean I kowtow and cave in on a more important fundamental principle of devotion to God's law."
There you have it Purp. The hard right Christian ethic of worshiping an imaginary man in the sky than loving their own children.
The Christians like this should be ashamed of themselves.
Quartermaster| 3.15.13 @ 12:58PM
We should be ashamed? Of what? rjecting the depravity God Himself he would not accept? You can cling to your atheistic superstitions all you like, but that will haunt you in the not too distant future. Not just in a country that has been destroyed by the depravity you accept, but by a God whose provision for your sin you rejected.
You twits simply make fools of yourselfs quoting scripture you have utterly no understanding of. We don't condemn, but we must tell a person that they are doing wrong, and God will judge the unpenitent sinner. It is wrong to pat a person on the back and tell them it's OK to keep sinning. The people that should be ashamed are those like yourself and Purp.
Purp| 3.15.13 @ 11:03PM
I am no atheist you blithering idiot. You don't agree, so I must be an atheist? How stupid and ignorant can you be?
2 gay people in a loving relationship is blessed by God by their simple asking for his blessing without the Church, and certainly without your approval.
If you understand religion, theology and it's entire raison d'etre you would know that.
It is simply establishing the legal tenets of marriage equality that is in question. Religion is simply used as a cudgel to hit people with - YOU should be ashamed of yourself using God that way.
Wonder how you feel about blasphemy? I'm just telling you that you are doing wrong and God will surely judge you, for it is his place and his alone. Hmmm, you should have known that too.
ejp| 3.15.13 @ 2:58PM
Typical lie from the bigoted atheist mind. The issue is not one of "love". Under the asinine logic of Rob Portman, if his child were to come out as a prostitute, then he would thus feel motivated to show "love" for his child by supporting repeal of laws against prostitution.
I am not ashmed of my position, and the fact that I should somehow be ashamed for defending a mainstream perspective against the bigoted perspective of intolerant atheists like you, is the thing that is really laughable.
Purp| 3.15.13 @ 11:08PM
EJPP - you are NOT in the mainstream anymore, denying marriage equality, but then Fixed News won't tell you that, will they?
Being gay is not illegal, and your comparison is ridiculous.
Nevertheless, if you child was gay, would you not support them and help them - after all YOU should know all too well the rough life they have ahead with bigots like you around.
It's different when it hits close to home... are you sure you don't have gay relatives? Or are they afraid to tell YOU?
Sad, very sad, you are so intolerant and not loving of your own enough to understand how so many others feel about their own.
ejp| 3.16.13 @ 12:27AM
The mainstream view never changes, Mr. Purp. Merely because a group of determined anti-Christian bigots in the gay lobby keep up an incessant drumbeat for decades thanks to their monopoly in the media and in Hollyweird to soften public opinion does not make the position right. God's law never changes. And that's the blunt truth a certified phony like you who only wants to remake God in your own image to suit your own little pecadilloes in life will obviously never understand because you love your sin more than you love God. But that must forever remain your problem. As for me, I never said there would be no "love" for someone close to me who engages in sin, I merely said I would not then become a convert in support of their sin just because they are a relative. For I choose to put God higher than that if my faith is to truly m ean something.
Purp| 3.16.13 @ 1:11PM
EJPP - Yes, mainstream opinion has changed from 20 years ago... you just don't know it. As society changes, so does our politics ... too bad you can't see gay people for who they are - people.
It's hilarious how YOU decide that I am remaking God in my image... you are completely wacko.
You really don't believe in fairness and equality, and like the typical Conservadum you don't see how that stance is contradictory to your supposed love of freedom, the US Constitution, and America.
How God determines your fate is YOUR problem. I like my chances, looking out for my fellow man. What good works have you done?
Purp| 3.15.13 @ 4:36PM
God's law also says you should not eat shellfish - do you abstain? If not, you break God's law.
God's law says you should share your wife with visitors. Do you? If not, you break God's law.
God's law says you cannot divorce. Did you? If you did, you break God's law.
God's law can be pretty much whatever you choose to believe. Do you really think he does not forgive?
It is not God's law that makes you this bigoted - it is your teachings and your own opinion that makes it so.
If you want to cite Scripture, then cite it - what chapter and verse, or your just spinning like every other ReichWinger.
As far as sin is concerned, "He without sin, cast the first stone" ... seems I heard tell of someone pretty important say that...Hmmm, who could it possibly, possibly be?
Nevertheless, recognizing marriage equality under LAW has nothing to do with religion, the Church or Scripture. It is man's law, and you don't have to be married in a Church, Synagogue or Mosque to be married by LAW. That is all marriage equality is about.
You can hide behind your religion and spout religious objections, but it is a red herring and you know it.
ejp| 3.15.13 @ 4:45PM
Purp, you would make a very lousy Biblical scholar. Invoking an OT prohibition that is supplanted by the New Covenant relationship of the New Testament expressed in the outreach to the Gentiles does not apply here for homosexual behavior since St. Paul, the very man who took it upon himself to stress that the Gentiles did not have to become Jews to become Christians, was the one who is quoted on the sinful nature of homosexual conduct in the Epistle to the Corinthians (where he does not single it out alone, but mentions it in passing among other sins that our society still regards as sins and moral wrongs). Is he in error to have said this? If so, then that would mean Christ was in error to have chosen him in the Damascus revelation to preach the Gospel. That is not a Christ worth worshipping if Christ ends up judging wrongly on that point. And since I see enough from the evidence of history to support the reality of Christ's Resurrection from the dead to validate the matter of who Christ was, then I am a lot more comfortable believing in the truth of what His chosen Apostle said than in the self-centered motives of fallible men of the modern age who want to rewrite the Bible to suit their own agendas.
God's law can not be "whatever you choose to believe". God's law is designed to be unchanging over time in terms of its basic meanings. Relativism is for those who simply want to "do their own thing" and presume the fallible mind of man superior to God.
Purp| 3.15.13 @ 11:14PM
God's law cannot be just "whatever you choose to believe" either -
Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, ‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as ‘the commandment of God’ (Matthew 15:3) and as the ‘Word of God’ (Matthew 15:6). He also indicated that it was indestructible: ‘Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished’
(Matthew 5:18).
If a person believes in Jesus Christ, he should be consistent and believe that the Old Testament and its accounts are correct. Since you don't, you are lost and should go immediately to Church and pray for guidance.
In any case, if you are going to argue Scripture, then wield it properly and with citation - elsewise it is simply your fallible opinion and can be ignored - which I shall now do, since I have put thee down.
ejp| 3.16.13 @ 12:32AM
Purp, thanks again for showing that when it comes to being a Biblical scholar, you're a first class ignoramus. You obviously have never heard of the concept of "New Covenant" to understand the difference between the arrival of Christ and His redemptive act on the cross and why that supplants Old Testament codes given to the Jews for the believer who seeks salvation and which is why Paul could then preach to the Gentiles and instruct them that they could come to Christ without undergoing the rituals of circumcision or the kosher diet. But that same St. Paul, whom Christ saw fit to appear to on the road to Damascus to give the charge to, also is explicit on the subject of homosexual behavior in the Epistle to the Corinthians (where sexual sin was a major problem in the fledgling church there), so therefore I am NOT appealing to the Old Covenant law of the Old Testament in justifying the Christian perspective on homosexual behavior, which renders the rest of your argument for the hot air nonsense that it is.
Purp| 3.16.13 @ 1:27PM
EJPP - your diatribe is simply one aspect of theological philosophy and interpretation... You speak as if you have the absolute truth, which of course, you don't.
As for Paul and his mistranslated texts, "time and again, that the words traditionally mistranslated as ‘homosexual,’ ‘effeminate,’ ‘impure,’ and so forth, are really targeting selfish, unloving, unjust activity and have nothing to do with sexual orientation, Once again Paul was condemning those who violate the Justices of the Torah, and nothing more.”
What is written has been interpreted as I said, and accepted for 2000 years - but that didn't make it right, did it?
Perhaps you should do some additional study of theology ... you are simply parroting - how did you say it .... oh yes "Merely because a group of determined anti-Christian bigots in the gay lobby keep up an incessant drumbeat for decades thanks to their monopoly in the media and in Hollyweird to soften public opinion does not make the position right. God's law never changes." - true, but man's interpretation of it most certainly does...
You may cling to your mistranslated ideas, but it doesn't change the fact there is a different interpretation that you are ignorant of.
You do know that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls changed a lot of interpretations of the Bible that existed for hundreds of years?
I didn't think so.
SUBVET| 3.15.13 @ 7:17PM
purp/numbnuts.....if you are a man you break god's law we are of this world.
Where's Dr. Right when you need him.
Purp| 3.15.13 @ 11:16PM
What crap is that? Let me ask you 3 questions:
Why did Jesus come to Earth?
Why did he have to die?
What are the limitations of God's Love?
I know, you can't answer.
ejp| 3.16.13 @ 12:36AM
Jesus came to Earth to redeem mankind of the taint of the original sin that took place in the Fall of man from God. Through belief in Christ as the redeemer, we are saved and offered the gift of eternal salvation, but only if we are prepared to acknowledge our sin and surrender all to Him.
There is no limit of God's law to any sinner, no matter what the sin is. This is the point so conveniently missed because I believe a gay person who desires to repent of his sin is as worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven as the sinner whose acts of sin are of a heterosexual nature or any other sinner whose sins are those society likes to brand as "lesser" sins (lying, cheating etc.) I am not "better" in the eyes of God because I don't engage in homosexual behavior, because I have my own sin to deal with and my own flaws as an imperfect human tainted by sin. But neither do I *celebrate* the sin and decide I can rewrite the Bible to justify the sin and presume I can go on sinning as much as I please because I think the sin is right. And therein lies the difference.
Purp| 3.16.13 @ 2:02PM
EJPP - actually I agree with most of what you say. Only when you jump into judging the sins of others do I disagree.
As I've said elsewhere, God's law is not changeable, but man's interpretation of it has always been so.
And that is the difference.... what you are so sure of is not necessarily the truth ... it is what has been interpreted and taught, and therefore is no defense for bigotry against marriage equality, which is a legal, not religious matter. Even so, the religious is truth is changeable as well, just as the Church at one time locked Galileo away for heresy by pronouncing the Earth was not the center of the Universe. He has since been cleared of all sin in the matter. Change does happen, even in religion.
TNcracker | 3.15.13 @ 7:57PM
Men having anal sex with each other is still disgusting.
Purp| 3.15.13 @ 11:17PM
Men having anal sex with women you like?
While I don't partake in either party in the anal cavity, it is simply your opinion.
I don't like green peppers, they are disgusting... the meaning is the same.
You are dismissed.
The Only Good Democrat| 3.16.13 @ 7:46PM
It is an irrational use of a bodily system that has another purpose. Their are health consequences for these ridiculous choice.
"While I don't partake in either party in the anal cavity,..."
Thanks for the confession. Who would write a sentence like this?
Stephie| 3.15.13 @ 11:47AM
And everyone should be just like you Purp?
Really?
Purp| 3.15.13 @ 4:41PM
When it comes to love of America and your family and your God above all else - yes, you should.
I just happen to believe my God is a merciful and forgiving Father, not the sulfur and brimstone y'all think he is...
Hmmm, sulfur? Now who would sulfur and hatred of your fellow man really signify? Jesus warned you about him. You know in your heart who he is and yet you do his works for him.
ejp| 3.15.13 @ 5:19PM
God is indeed merciful. But why then did Jesus say to the adulteress after He saved her from the mob who wanted to stone her, "Go and sin no more?" You see, forgiveness also requires the sinner asking to be forgiven for the *sin* and a willlingness to change one's ways or to ask God for guidance on this. You sound as though you are of the view that one does not have to repent of sin to receive mercy from God, and that is what I call the "Welfare state" approach to salvation in which God's gift of salvation is to become this unearned handout to all regardless of what one does and regardless of what is in one's heart. That's not how it works. Salvation is indeed a gift from God but it is a gift we must accept the right way through our own heart and our own actions, or otherwise we do risk the final judgment in the Lake of Fire. And if you are saying you do not believe there is a Hell, then you operate from a standpoint that is theologically dishonest and laughable.
Purp| 3.15.13 @ 11:20PM
EJPP - You really have no idea why Jesus died and what he really did for all of us, do you?
Your view of sin is your view of sin... and can be ignored. Are you Catholic?
The rest is between the individual and Him - not you.
ejp| 3.16.13 @ 12:40AM
I think my understanding of why Jesus died is quite clear. I'd sure as heck like to know what your understanding of Him is, because all I'm hearing from you is some kind of non-judgmental do-your-own-thing guru and not the Divine Son of God.
Yes, the sin is between the individual and God, but what you are forgetting is that we are dealing with an issue design to CODIFY INTO LAW sinful conduct and to CODIFTY INTO LAW discrimination and bigotry against those who hold to what the Biblical teaching on homosexuality and gay marriage are. That is all the gay lobby is interested in. If they wish to sin in private that is their business but when they try to get laws changed that impact on MY religious freedom, then sir, we are talking about something that no Christian of conscience can be silent about. And I refuse to let my views be shoved into the closet by the bigots of the gay lobby.
SUBVET| 3.15.13 @ 7:20PM
I see you learned a new word for eldiablo.
Purp| 3.15.13 @ 11:21PM
Ha - there are many incarnations of the devil.
TNcracker | 3.15.13 @ 8:01PM
Talk around it all you want; anal sex between men is still disgusting.
Purp| 3.15.13 @ 11:22PM
TNanny - then by all means, do not partake. It's not your place to keep others from anything they want to do between 2 consenting adults.
Is your wife ever on top? In some States that's still illegal, because it is disgusting - or was at one time.
You may go to school now.
JP| 3.15.13 @ 10:34PM
Forgiving of what? Sodomy? Are you saying that buggery is a Mortal Sin?
JP| 3.15.13 @ 10:33PM
And if your son converted to the KKK and referred to gays as dirty sodomites only fit for the gibbet would you feel the same?
Purp| 3.15.13 @ 11:23PM
What gibberish is this?
The Only Good Democrat| 3.16.13 @ 7:47PM
You really are quite a shallow fellow.
Citizen Jerry| 3.15.13 @ 10:29AM
Sadly, I think BSA will cave to the corporate threat of withheld funds by UPS and their ilk. When that happens, BSA will begin to die. The idea of “local option” is a joke, because those who opt out will be hectored, bullied and litigated into submission by the lavender lobby.
The only option I see is for churches and individuals who still hold to traditional sexual ethics to form their own organization, like the founders of American Heritage Girls, who walked away from the same poison in the Girl Scouts.
TLP| 3.15.13 @ 1:12PM
Whatever happened to Freedom of Association, and Freedom of Choice?
Chazael| 3.15.13 @ 11:00AM
If the "times" are evil... its profitable not to get with the "times".
Since homosexuality is impossible to be good, because it comes from the corruption of creation and not creation... one should run away from not towards.
Woe to the people through whom stumbling blocks come (Matt 18:7). There will be woe for those who promote, place and uphold immorality in a society for people to trip over... even if the people really, really, really want to trip over it.
Purp| 3.15.13 @ 11:18AM
Why are gay people here? Why does God allow them to continue since they don't reproduce? Where do they come from? How many are all around you?
Immorality - according to whom? You? Pfft. Bigot.
Quartermaster| 3.15.13 @ 2:09PM
Go ahead and demonstrate your ignorance and put up your strawmen.
There are very few Queers around. far less than 5% of the population, altough in places where depravity rules, almost anywhere you see your ilk in charge, they are a larger percentage of the population.
Purp| 3.15.13 @ 4:43PM
If you cannot answer the question, why then, why bother? Your ignorance is outstanding.
Pray tell, how do YOU know how many gay people there are? Can you count them? Do you see Angels too?
JP| 3.15.13 @ 10:35PM
Actually, the Harvard School of Medicine did a study about a decade ago and estimated that the gay population is between 3 and 4 percent.
Purp| 3.15.13 @ 11:26PM
I see, so all gay people freely admitted they were gay?
"Estimate" is the key word... estimated how, by whom and by what means?
Nevertheless we're talking Millions and Millions of people you treat as second class citizens, not worthy of equality with you...
Does that not ring a bell with you? If you could identify gay people would you treat them Separate but Equal too? And you think racism is dead too?
We are all God's Children ... it's time you starting acting like it and treating them as such.
The Only Good Democrat| 3.16.13 @ 7:49PM
They are a wealthy minority trying to force their sick views on the public.
Bandido| 3.15.13 @ 2:10PM
About 2% of the population.
Purp| 3.15.13 @ 4:44PM
Pray tell, how do YOU know how many gay people there are?
Hmmm, 2% that's over 6 Million people!
5%, that's over 15 million people!
Yeah, you're right, not that many ... Kill them all, right?
ejp| 3.15.13 @ 5:15PM
I'm not for "killing" anyone. Take up that issue with the Muslims.
However, I do not see where such a small minority has the right to impose its standard of morality on the rest of the population and thus pave the way for state sanctioned discrimination against those who believe in the moral wrongness of the gay lifestyle and gay marriage. In Canada, there is no longer any freedom of religion for ministers to preach on this point. I have no desire to see that come to America, though the gay lobby seems determined to make it so.
Purp| 3.15.13 @ 11:34PM
Name one thing a gay marriage would do to threaten your own gay marriage?
How is your morality changed by marriage equality? Are you that weak-willed?
State discrimination against anti-gay people? Are you serious? Like in what way? Not allowing you to bash gay people? Refuse to serve them in restaurants? Fire them for being gay? You mean those horrible shackles on your freedom to demean who you want? Unbelievable.
You want to know what threatens YOUR marriage it's DIVORCE... That will definitely KILL your own marriage.
I'm sure they don't preach on Slavery or Subjugation of Women either - you have a problem with that too?
Oh, that "small minority" probably has 2 parents, multiple siblings, aunts, uncles, etc. Millions multiplied many times over are not such a small minority, now are they?
Why do you think marriage equality is being accepted more and more?
My sisters and brothers, nieces and nephews, sons and daughters have the equal right to marry and be happy and stable like I was with my own wife.
And, so do yours. Get with it.
The Only Good Democrat| 3.16.13 @ 7:51PM
It is just another sign of the sad state of marriage in our post Christian country. Children suffer to be the toys of adults.
Bandido| 3.15.13 @ 5:15PM
Burn them alive.
Purp| 3.15.13 @ 11:35PM
BandyBoy ... of course, there's a devil worshipper popping up.
Bandido| 3.16.13 @ 10:40AM
Draw and quarter them. Then burn the torn and bloody stumps one at a time in a great conflagration, while everyone dances, drinks, and revels.
Purp| 3.16.13 @ 2:03PM
I believe you have just condemned yourself out of your own mouth. Not for me to know, but ....
Bandido| 3.16.13 @ 4:09PM
So easy, so effortless to bait you, Mr. Guillible. We show you the silver hammer and up jerks your knee. You're one of P. T. Barnum's all-time suckers. We here all have great fun and hilarity at your expense.
JP| 3.15.13 @ 10:36PM
Actually it was the gay cultures of Rome and Greece that crucified people they didn't like
Purp| 3.15.13 @ 11:35PM
Hahahaha ...
The Only Good Democrat| 3.16.13 @ 7:52PM
Revealing!
Real Deal| 3.15.13 @ 11:26AM
"...asks if a 15-year-old “openly gay Scout”..."
How the heck does a 15 yr old know he or she is a homosexual? Granted, the kids now days are getting sexuallized much younger than in my youth but come on. A 15 yr old is not experienced enough (at least I would hope not sexually, and definitely not life experienced enough) to make that kind of decision. Yes, I said it. It's a choice for at least 90% of homosexuals. Personally I don't care what 2 or more consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. However if you can get a homosexual man to talk candidly you will find out it is a choice of sheer hedonism. Multiple partners with the same sex drive/attitude towards casual sex as you, no worries about unwanted pregnancy, and a sub-culture that embraces hedonism. Women who are homosexual usually tend to have issues with men due to childhood abuse of all kinds and/or rape. Many males also have a history of childhood sexual abuse as well. It's also interesting that even homosexual relationships devolve into "male" & "female" roles and identies with in the realtionship.
Approve, diapprove, or indifferent homosexuals are people too and should be treated with basic human decency. Many of them need mental and emotional counseling due to tramatic childhoods. The psycholological community is really doing them harm by affirming lives that are often cries for help or acting out due to mental and emotional wounds.
TLP| 3.15.13 @ 1:16PM
So, according to you, Incest is okay as long as they are two consenting Adults. And, why just Two? Why can't I have 5 Wives, so long as it's Consentual?
Kwan| 3.15.13 @ 11:27AM
The real question here is what does someone that is possessed with the mental aberration of homosexuality actually have in common with the Boy Scouting tradition and purpose. Answer: Nothing. This is another leftist attack on another conservative institution that the left wishes to destroy. We should not allow our children to be used as pawns in the left's "War on American Values".
Wildking20| 3.15.13 @ 11:39AM
If the BSA overturns their ban; I will not allow my son (he's two now) to participate. Just as I spent eight years in the Corps, I wanted my son to consider joining as well. I am now an advocate agiainst him joining as he will no longer have the luxury of having the best fighting men on either side of him in combat which is a big detriment to his health and well being.
TLP| 3.15.13 @ 1:17PM
Indeed.
TLP| 3.15.13 @ 1:18PM
As a Vet. I can see a Huge Retention Problem, forthcoming.
Ronsch| 3.15.13 @ 12:16PM
DO NOT FEED THE TROLL...Purp/Arnie/Alan..whatever the fluck is BACKKKKK!!!!
Arnie| 3.15.13 @ 12:22PM
Hey you Tea Party Republicans, I think I know the problem with your party.
About 5% are in the closet homosexuals. You better start the purge now. Their infecting the rest of your party. Lindsay Graham can be first to go...
http://www.thedailyshow.com/wa.....th-a-smear
djn1313| 3.15.13 @ 12:48PM
I think your lack of a functioning brain is the problem.
Quartermaster| 3.15.13 @ 2:11PM
I would agree with Lindsey "Little Girl" Grahamnesty going. he can take Juan McCainiac with him.
Derek Leaberry| 3.15.13 @ 12:36PM
Not too long ago, when morality and good sense reigned, the thought of having an older homosexual camping out in the woods with boys would have been not only a non-starter but would have been laughed at out of hand. How times change. The American people are surely lost. The best thing that could happen to the country is for the budget to implode so that some sort of rebirth might be possible. Today, we are Rome 476.
Arnie| 3.15.13 @ 12:40PM
So you think the religious Dark Ages are better than Rome?
ejp| 3.15.13 @ 3:56PM
I don't even think you know what the "Dark Ages" were, Arnie. Are we talking about the time when the Byzantine CHRISTIAN Empire was flourishing in Constantinople as a great repository of knowledge and prosperity? (You no doubt still believe the falsehood that only Muslims were preserving knowledge in that era). The Western Empire fell apart because of a breakdown in authority and the threat posed by *non-Christian* invaders, and only because the Church was there to provide a cultural focal point was any kind of semblance of order maintained amidst the chaos (while the Western monks, the most learned of Christians, singlehandedly saved manuscripts from destruction).
JP| 3.15.13 @ 10:40PM
Yes, Absolutely. You want Rome? You can have its crucifixions, slaver, chattel, matricide, infanticide. public feeding of minorities to lions. You want me to go on?
djn1313| 3.15.13 @ 12:51PM
This nation is in a sad state as more and more organizations are forced to give up their standards for a few sickos.
TLP| 3.15.13 @ 1:22PM
Back in the 80's, the Japanese said that the United States was DOOMED, because they spend too much time placating their Minorities.
Truer words were never spoken.
We have a Tyranny of the Minority, in this Country.
How's that working out?
Stan Redmond| 3.15.13 @ 2:16PM
The BSA must be destroyed. It IS one of the last places in the USA where boys can be boys. There is a war on men and boys and everything traditional. They even teach dreaded gun safety and use in the Boy Scouts, at least I did. The Boy Scouts is not a place to learn about sexuality and whatever the deviant sexual behavious is hip on the college campus.
FORWARD!!!
Purp| 3.15.13 @ 4:46PM
Deviant to YOU ... but you are nothing, so who cares?
I think you are deviant in your hatred of other human beings. You are certainly a deviation from Christian teachings.
ejp| 3.15.13 @ 9:37PM
So far, Purp, you haven't demonstrated what it is you know about "Christian" teachings since you think Christ was a fool to have picked out St. Paul to minister to the Gentiles (since it was Paul who specifically mentioned homosexual behavior as a sin to the Corinthians).
Purp| 3.15.13 @ 11:37PM
You said it, not me .. so YOU will pay for that, not me. I have NEVER said such a blasphemous thing.
I'll take God's love any day over anyone else. He is my salvation, you simply bastardize words to make a point.
ejp| 3.16.13 @ 12:52AM
Purp, I'm merely taking your arguments to their logical conclusion. St. Paul said what he said to the Corinthians. That is a fact of Scripture. Now if you don't think St. Paul was a fool, do you then think someone made those words up, which would put you in the camp of some revisionist scholars who never like to acknowledge the Bible says what it says?
I'd like to point out that never once have I ever said that I would not give "love" to someone who is a relative of mine who engages in something that I regard as sinful. I merely said that means I will not endorse their conduct to prove my "love" as Senator Portman shamefully did. I also condemn anyone who would suggest that one group of sinners should be targeted with violence because of their sin. Let the Muslims be the ones to promote that hateful garbage. But I am offended by the attempts to rewrite Christian doctrine and God's Law into something it does not say to justify the whims of one particular group of people who desperately want a sanction for their own conduct that is not there. When I see these people even attempt to peddle the idea that the centurion whose servant Jesus healed was actually in a gay marriage relationship with his servant (as I saw in some disgusting propaganda promoted in the place where I WORK) then I will oppose that with no regrets whatsoever.
Purp| 3.16.13 @ 2:05PM
"Although Romans 1 contains the only unequivocal reference to homosexuality, anti-homosexual statements have been introduced into other passages in newer versions of the English Bible. As for these modern changes to the Biblical text: “Michael Wood has gone the extra mile in being faithful to Paul’s Greek,” said Dr. Berg. “He shows, time and again, that the words traditionally mistranslated as ‘homosexual,’ ‘effeminate,’ ‘impure,’ and so forth, are really targeting selfish, unloving, unjust activity and have nothing to do with sexual orientation. He shows that once again Paul was condemning those who violate the Justices of the Torah, and nothing more.”
JP| 3.15.13 @ 10:41PM
Sodomy is a Sin. Why should we celebrate Sodomy? Why not fornication and adultery?
Purp| 3.15.13 @ 11:38PM
Funny - then marriage should be illegal for any fornicator or adulterer, right? Think it through before spouting off.
JP| 3.16.13 @ 11:54AM
Purp,
You really are dense. To you, anyone who does not agree with your behavior wishes to outlaw said behavior. I said nothing about outlawing sodomy. But, I did ask why elevate a disgusting act like sodomy to such an high position? With you people it has become a raison d'etre.
Occam's Tool| 3.15.13 @ 4:11PM
These are Teenagers, not old enough for legal sex.No Gays in the Boy Scouts. Tradition has its place.
CJW| 3.15.13 @ 4:56PM
The problem with most of the comments here by the usual supects, all lefties, is that they focus on the " rights" of a gay man to serve as a scoutmaster.
The focus must be only on the rights of the minor children who are entrusted to the care and protection of a scoutmaster, especially on overnite trips and camping. The only issue is the safety of the children and not the political agenda.
As I stated above, no sane person would approve allowing a hetero male who may be sexually attracted to girsl, some ages 16 to 18, to take overnite trips and camping trips with girls. So why would we allow a gay scoutmaster who may be sexually attracted to boys, some of whom may be 16-18 years of age?
I doubt there are that many gay men who wish to be scoutmasters. This is a phoney issue.
Derek Leaberry| 3.15.13 @ 5:10PM
For the Left, everything goes.
Occam's Tool| 3.15.13 @ 8:45PM
CJW: please see the hilarious "Father Ted" on Pedophilic Priests. This is a nightmare waiting to happen.
My Boy is in 4-H. That's where he stays.
JP| 3.15.13 @ 10:44PM
The Left will find the gays, and get them to file suite in court. And if they can't win in court they will bankrupt the BSA. The BSA knows this and is ready to surrender - if only the parents will let them. Either way the gays win.
Purp| 3.15.13 @ 11:39PM
Then give up... what's all the fuss about? None of this resistance makes any sense.
ejp| 3.16.13 @ 12:55AM
Ah, now we get warmed over Darth Vader rhetoric. "It is useless to resist......"
TLP| 3.16.13 @ 4:00PM
Actually, that would be The Borg.
Bandido| 3.16.13 @ 4:12PM
Resistance is futile, said Locutus.
Occam's Tool| 3.16.13 @ 3:09PM
One can never surrender to Vermin, no matter how hopeless the fight seems. I thought you were a military man, Purp.
CLD| 3.16.13 @ 1:18AM
"The problem with most of the comments here by the usual supects, all lefties, is that they focus on the " rights" of a gay man to serve as a scoutmaster."
That's interesting, CJW. I count 4 commenters who have disented from the general "longstanding BSA policy good; homosexuality bad" theme of this thread: DRed, Purp, Arnie, and myself.
DRed commented on the relevance (or lack thereof) of the First Amendment to this issue. Purp made a comment in favor of pro-gay Republicans and then spent his time attacking religious arguments against homosexuality. Arnie agreed with Purp's religious view, attacked the Tea Party and the GOP, and then asked about the Dark Ages. There was no presumption of any 'right' to be a scoutmaster by any man in any of their comments.
As to political views in general, only Arnie's jab at the GOP and the Tea Party hints at his politics. So how you know all three of these posters to be lefties is unclear.
My comment contained no presumption of a right to be a scout leader either. It merely challenged the hypocricy of the forces that led an oppresive sexual ethos in the not-so-distant past -- when two men could be harassed or arrested by police just for dancing together -- now complaining about a plea for tolerance and understanding from the mainstream culture. (And I'm not a leftist either.)
CJW| 3.16.13 @ 1:27PM
You must be new here, or pretending to be.
Purpie/arnie/Dred are all proud lefties who will not deny their lefty politics.
You are evading the issue, which is the safety of boys scouts and girl scouts.
The issue is do you favor having gay male scoutmasters accompany boys on overnite trips, such as campinng trips, and do you favor having hetero male scoutmasters accompany girls on overnite trips, such as camping?
Yes, or no.
CLD| 3.17.13 @ 9:21AM
I am not new here -- far from it. However, I do not regularly read the comment threads and haven't visited the site for quite some time. So I am unfamiliar with the views of these commenters beyond what they've posted here.
I assumed your original comment was also directed at me -- that may have been an error. Nevertheless, I stand by my assertion: no right to be a scoutmaster was assumed in any of the comments.
I was evading no issue; my comment focused exclusively on that part of yours that interested me. As to your question about the safety of the scouts, I consider it to be much ado about nothing.
First: The BSA isn't going to let a single adult take any group of children or teenagers alone on any camping trip anywhere.
Second: Outside of such organizations as the Boy Scouts, single adults do supervise other people's children -- even overnight -- all the time without anyone thinking twice about it. Girls are in the care of men all over the world right this minute. Is there any hue and cry about it?
The only times these objections are raised is when the issue of homosexuality is on the table. The entire matter is a pure example of why the word "homophobia" was coined: irrational fear (phobia) of 'homos.'
CLD| 3.17.13 @ 9:25AM
While we are on the subject of evading topics, CJW, let us note you evaded the point I made about the rhetoric of Aristocrat and TLP:
"Odd that you and all your fellow defenders of the BSA and religious traditionalists on this thread failed to notice this nastiness."
Now that I've answered the question you were so concerned I was avoiding, would you care to answer this concern?
CLD| 3.16.13 @ 1:31AM
I should note also, CJW, that my first comment quoted the "Sodomite Scoutmasters" crack of Aristocrat so as to call attention to the nasty rhetoric of commenters like himself and TLP ("Pole Munching Fudge Packers") which others like Cobalt have worked to extend.
Odd that you and all your fellow defenders of the BSA and religious traditionalists on this thread failed to notice this nastiness.
As for my part, I've contacted the editors to ask if they consider such language appropriate for their site.
TLP| 3.16.13 @ 4:02PM
Good Boy.
Let's silence everyone we disagree with.
SIEG HEIL!
CLD| 3.17.13 @ 9:42AM
Ahh... I know that post would get a rise out of you. Thanks for not disappointing.
OH! The irony of being accused of being a Nazi for objecting to the posting of dehumizing bullsh!t to the Internet! How delicious!
On the down side, the Nazi reference was none too original. But I've no excuse for expecting better: You're too stupid to know the difference between expecting decency in a public forum and demanding an end to all debate.
TLP| 3.17.13 @ 4:48PM
"You're too stupid to know the difference between expecting decency in a public forum and demanding an end to all debate."
This from a guy that called the Moderators, in an effort to get me Banned.
Priceless.
Idiot.
CLD| 3.18.13 @ 5:41PM
So now we see into the mindset that permitted the offensive rubbish in the first place: TLP thinks any comment thread he visits is all about him.
Being rid of your nasty nonsense is hardly ending all debate. You've a hugely inflated sense of yourself.
Gartenmayer | 3.16.13 @ 3:35AM
Is the survey biased towards pushing respondents against the BSA’s current policy, or does it accurately reflect the conflict? It’s debatable. But probably most respondents, as current or former participants in Scouting, either http://www.toneweras.com/new-era-famous-c-8.html way will oppose a policy change. Southern Baptist leader Richard Land, in publicly defending the policy, has asked whether heterosexual men should be allowed to escort teenage girls on overnight camping trips. He cites frail human nature as constantly vulnerable to moral failure, hence protections are constantly needed against temptation, such as permitting homosexual men to lead Scout troops. Probably most BSA supporters, even in the current cultural climate of hyper tolerance, understand the core argument for the BSA’s current standard.
Beyond the Boy Scouts, at stake is whether any private organization beyond religious institutions shall be permitted by the current culture to uphold traditional sexual ethics. And ultimately are churches themselves, even if legally protected by the First Amendment, safe from hostility and growing intolerance against traditionalism? A lot may depend on whether the BSA in May and beyond is willing to forego some corporation donations and
Michele San Pietro| 3.16.13 @ 7:15AM
The people are first of all human beings and should under no circumstances be officially categorized as heterosexuals or homosexuals. Therefore, anybody in my opinion has the right to join the boy scouts regardless of their sexual tendence. Of course, the latter must never be used to molest and abuse other people, in a boy scout camp or elsewhere.
Bandido| 3.16.13 @ 11:56AM
No, of course not. And the sun must never be allowed to emit harmful rays.
Occam's Tool| 3.16.13 @ 3:08PM
CLD: sometimes people must be met with vulgarity, for they are profoundly lacking in moral sense. Take Purp, for instance. A pathetic swine who understands not the basics of the society he lives in. A man who never read "A Man for All Seasons."
I have been accused of vulgarity in the past. True enough. TLP's vulgarity is always done for the purpose of expressing disgust at fools.
CJW| 3.16.13 @ 3:30PM
Occam
Visit the contest at monday's story on Wes Welker.
Bandido| 3.16.13 @ 4:15PM
I think Purp has been seeing a phrenologist recently.
CLD| 3.17.13 @ 9:07AM
NO. What TLP wrote goes far beyond simple vulgarity.
Could he have described people of the African race as niggers and jungle bunnies and been accused of merely being vulgar? I think not.
TLP| 3.17.13 @ 4:52PM
Just so you know?
I've contacted this Site's Moderators on your use of the N-Word.
Something I would never do.
Bye Bye.
Come Monday, you WILL be gone.
CLD| 3.18.13 @ 5:45PM
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha!
Boy, did I get under someone's skin! :)
So, you'd never use the word 'nigger,' not even to discuss the way it's been historically used, but think calling gay men "Pole Munching Fudge Packers" is fine and dandy. Go figure.
West Houston| 3.16.13 @ 5:16PM
The sad fact is that the Boy Scout organization has long history of "leadership" having their way with the boys. Way too much and it was hushed up for way too long. Finally, reforms were made including "double deep leadership" where no boy or group of same is ever left with less than two adult leaders. Even then, you could not assume safety. Adult BSA leaders undergo extensive training to recognize danger signals.
This was not spoken of openly when I was a Boy Scout (45 years ago), but I still heard rumors - that turned out to be all too true. BSA has had enough of those predators and their despicable transgressions against young innocent boys.
It would seem that “gays” would have us put our children at risk - all over again - only to make their political point. That seems a very selfish and mean-spirited attitude.
I GOT HUNG UP SILLY| 3.17.13 @ 9:43AM
Would sure be helpful if Karl Rove's Conservative Super PAC could spare a few dimes to support the past Boy Scout tradition with a few National TV advertisements !
Next the future Gay Scouts will be demanding their rights on camping trips to freely show their fellow scout campers> Gay Sex www Porn on their computer phones !
obadiah| 3.17.13 @ 5:37PM
will it be ok with everyone if they have separate merit badges for straight sex and gay sex?