“If you think that allowing homosexuals (who are open about their homosexuality and therefore acknowledging that their sexual orientation is of greater importance than being a scout leader) is a good idea and that parents should feel safe leaving their children in their trust, then you are the one who needs to take the blinders off.”
Please go back and read my posts and find one place where I said letting homosexuals be scout leaders is a good idea. If you can find it I will contribute 100 dollars to FR. I think the scouts have their own specific moral code and it doesn’t include homosexuality. Therefore they have every right to exclude homosexuals. I have found nowhere in literature about this issue where the Scouts have ever claimed they keep homosexuals out because they fear molestation. They have ALWAYS said it was about their moral views.
My point has been, and is, that a gay man may make a great scout master. But as soon as that man reveals he is gay, then he announces that his orientation, and having others accept his orientation, are his top priorities.
If I were homosexual and really wanted to serve in the military, I wouldn't announce my homosexuality. When I do, what I'm saying is that I want to be a “gay soldier,” that is, I hyphenated my priorities.
A man who announces his homosexuality and then tries to become a scout leader, will almost definitely try to indoctrinate the troops, either explicitly or implicitly. The strategy of planting funny, lovable gay men as background characters in sitcoms since the 80’s was done so with the effect of stealthily winning support and acceptance of homosexuals. I don't think we can deny how militant they've become since then.
All I was saying was that the scouts have a right and duty to be employ close scrutiny in selecting scout leaders, and that those who announce their hyphenated loyalties should do so at the risk of being denied.
So, I didn't mean to imply “you” as in yazoo, but as in the general public who put the scouts down for being selective.