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.
“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.”
And I agree with your entire post. I believe that is why the scouts have a right (as any other groups does) to decide what are the qualifications to be involved. No one has the right to ask a member if he is homosexual if no evidence exists he is. Should a person openly claim he is homosexual then I also believe there is an agenda and the scouts have a perfect right to claim it is contrary to their ethics, codes, whatever.