Posted on 03/26/2013 5:52:31 PM PDT by cradle of freedom
Sure, so long as you’re not concerned about them being raped and sodomized.
My personal opinion agrees with the libertarians, but at the same time there is no chance on God's green earth that I would put any son of mine in the same troop with a male homo scoutmaster for the same reason I would not want any daughter of mine on a camping trip overnight in the woods with a straight man who isn't the dad of her friend who is also there.
For obvious reasons.
I would guess you would be in favor of state enforcing specifications for leaders on the Boy Scouts. As long as you could draft the specifications.
The concept of a double edged sword is completely beyond your ken isn’t it?
My post #19, never mentioned the Boy Scouts. The BSA as a private org can make their own rules, but libertarians will always support buggery
Libertarians support the left’s agenda of gay marriage, homosexuals in the military, abortion, open borders and such, and they support politics and politicians who support those things, regardless of which party they align with, so in the big picture, they are part of the momentum and political and cultural energy of the left.
The libertarians response to FORCING the BS to have homosexual leaders is that no, they are a private organization, but the political EFFECT of the libertarians, is to support social liberals in elections and social liberalism culturally, and to fight Christianity and traditional, social conservative, Americanism.
I’m not a libertarian, but my response is HELL NO!
So you are a bigot.
I’ve heard a lot of so-called libertarians espouse positions that are distinctly not libertarian positions. Boortz often misapplied libertarianism....but you nailed the correct L position on this one for sure.
HELL NO.
Gay or straight, Scout rules never allow adults and children to share a tent.
One concern is where there is an age difference in the youth. A 17 year old kid can share a tent with a 12 year old, however it is bad practice.
That’s the thing. The term libertarian is so loosely defined that it’s probably a good idea to retire it.
The meaning of words in general are being undermined. Language is supposed to be a medium for conveying ideas.
God confound our speech once. The great imitator is doing it again today.
Gays should not be allowed to into the Boy Scouts. But, regardless of my opinion it is the Boy Scouts’ decision, not the government’s.
In all matters Scouting, I side with B.P.
Anything else is not Scouting.
Which, ironically is why I cannot support the general libertarian positon on gay marriage...it changes the word, and the institution, of a contract I signed many years ago. But my conservatism is a healthy dose of libertarianism plus a few principles around the edges...
Age of consent laws have a clear basis in constitutional principle and libertarian philosophy. Not they they follow their own philosophy often enough.
I wonder who libertarians would chose if they could only pick between a real conservative or an extreme liberal candidate?
Why did you ask this of libertarians specifically?
define “bigot”?
bigoted against a utopian philosophy??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.