Posted on 02/28/2003 2:36:31 PM PST by laureldrive
Edited on 04/14/2004 10:05:53 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
It is a great big reach to argue that the guy is a gay activist -- quoted in a college newspaper as a member of the gay & lesbian group -- and not "practicing." But, for the sake of argument, let's just say he wasn't. He still is actively supporting immoral behavior in a publication that was accessible to the community. That is enough to disqualify him, imo.
Look, there is nothing biologically normal about being gay. No matter how much gays want to be "the same" they simply are not. Their bodies are made just like heterosexuals. Their whole argument is based on "I want to, therefore it's normal." That's weak at best. There is NOTHING about their physical selves that backs that claim up. There are countless things we all face daily that force us to choose beweeen what we want and what we ought to do. All desire is not moral. There is nothing natural, normal, or moral about homosexuality. If you want to argue that someone has the right to choose an immoral lifestyle then that is one thing. But no one has the right to be a Boy Scout leader. That's a privilege. Immoral people need not apply.
Do you think scouts must also accept bisexuals or transexuals or the transgendered? What about polygamists or prostitutes? Where does it stop?
Additionally, gays being gay can't have kids. This is none of their business. Sure, many gays have kids but how did they get them? One hundred percent of the time they got them through heterosexuality. That is what is normal. It is normal -- as in supported by biology and nature -- to discriminate against gays in relation to children. If you want to argue what is "natural," THAT is natural.
Actually, with that last comment you've probably hit the nail on the head. You see, the BSA often leaves flexibility in thier policies so as to allow different local Councils an ability to adapt National guidelines to the community's own environment.
The amount of adaptation that a local Council is allowed depends on the type of policy. Membership policies tend to be the least flexible, but to me it seems that the deliberate addition of the word "avowed" in front of homosexual is, at the least, meant to establish that something other than merely being homosexual is necessary to ban someone from registering as a Scouter. It's more than just homosexual status that disqualifies you from the BSA, there's got to be some behavior too. The BSA, as it often does with other policies, allows local Councils some latitude in deterimining what that behavior is.
Oh. Thanks for the clarification.
"Unless you consider giving an interview to a paper immoral activity..."
I was explaining WHY I see a connection between his interview and his being morally unfit to be a Scout leader.
It is only permissable to force your beliefs on someone if the beliefs are liberal or secular in nature....
What is YOUR motivation, madg?
Good morning!
The actual court cases on this issue (exclusion of homosexuals in the BSA) began in 1990, according to the ACLU. And lambdalegal.org shows the Berkeley anti-discimination ordinance as 11/9/78 so Berkeley in 1997 was merely setting itself up to punish the Scouts by adding the "sexual preference" clause.
Interestingly, the Scouts were first granted the berth in a 1936 deal in which Berkeley got 80,000 tons of rock from a Boy Scout camp in exchange for the perpetual free berth.
It's PC harassment all the way. Maybe the Scouts should ask for their rock back from the Berkeley welshers.
You know the policy. You just interpret it according to your own ideology. I'm done with this conversation, Stone. You never answer my questions. You just answer my questions with questions and address my statements with either "I don't know what you are talking about," completely ignore them, or tell me how I am not telling you what you want to hear.
I'm not wasting more energy on a one-way "conversation."
See ya on another thread. I'm proud of the Boy Scout policy and it couldn't be more clear. If you can't understand it then just don't worry about it.
There's no question that so far Berkeley's actions have been found legal.
It's also sparklingly clear that Berkeley took this punitive action to punish the Scouts. The timing is irrefutable.
The fact that Berkeley has chosen to violate the "informal agreement" (in order to push its politically correct agenda of forcing all organizations everywhere to be accepting of homosexuals) illustrates the value of the leftists' word: zero. Their invention of the "sexual preference" clause in 1997 was a clever legal strategy, granted, and so far it has worked.
It's also despicable. Harassing the Sea Scouts for political points is low, even for the Democratic People's Republic of Berkeley.
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.