Posted on 03/25/2013 8:59:32 AM PDT by white trash redneck
As the Boy Scouts of America ponder whether to allow gays to be Scout leaders, a number Scouting officials debated the issue Saturday morning in downtown Orlando.
At the end of that session, dozens of Scout leaders and parents staged a news conference to announce the formation of a Scout group opposed to allowing "open homosexuality" by adults in the Boy Scouts.
"The Boy Scouts are one of the great jewels of American culture," said John Stemberger, Eagle Scout and founder of OnMyHonor.net. "We support the current policy of scouting, which is backed by over 100 years of tradition and allows anyone to participate irrespective of sexual orientation, only disallowing the open and aggressive promotion of homosexuality and political agendas. When it comes to young boys, parents have the final say on the issues of sex and politics."
Stemberger is well-known in Florida as the leader of a 2008 constitutional amendment campaign defining marriage as being one man and one woman. At the news conference, OnMYHonor.net was announced as the name of the organization that opposes allowing gay adults to be Scout leaders.
Scout officials interviewed by WESH 2 News at the summit expressed opinions on both sides of the issue.
After debating the issue last month and deciding to give it more study, the BSA is scheduled to prepare a policy in April and for national delegates to vote on in May.
True words indeed. I would like to add what I had stated on a previous post dealing with this matter. The homosexual might be aware of the career ruining incidents of other homosexuals. He may be determined to avoid giving in to his perverted desires. If he is among others, in the general run of society, there is always a deterrent of sorts.
Once completely alone and in charge for hours at a time, even days, the temptation is thus increased ten fold. It only makes sense imho. That is why the courts forbid perverts to frequent playgrounds and other areas, where there are kids.
only 100 years of tradition?
we’re already having a hard time fighting the lesbians and gays on marriage which has a 1000’s of years of tradition.
we need some help here, maybe some new HIV that works on women. (/sarc)
Hmmmmm, sounds a bit like “bullying” in the good old days!
And there you have it...
There's only one logical reason for gay men to demand access to my kids. Absolutely nothing good can come of this.
Frankly, I'm astonished that there's even anything to debate, here.
The republican candidate for president in 2012, has supported homosexual Scout masters for 20 years, and restated it during the campaign.
The BSA should created a branch for GAYS... the G/TSA: The Gay Transgendered Scouts of Anti-Americanism. (The Liberals might not like it, thou)
I'll be sure to vote against him in the upcoming 2012 presidential campaign. Good thing you're warning us before the election instead of bringing it up long after the election is over and he's no longer running.
Words fail me.
It is easy to see where you stand on this position, since I just pointed out that the republican party embraced it in 2012 with their nominee, and that set off your response defending the GOP’s choice.
This really p*sses me off. Excuse the language but the question should never have been asked.
Homosexuals are pedophiles....my congregation says no homo or gay will be allowed in the boy scout troop of which I am a Scoutmaster. If approached by one, I would and will refuse him membership into the organization...We leaders have to go through a back ground check by the BSA, and law officials be fore we can be a leader, for this reason to protect the youth from these filthy vermin, call gays, homosexuals, or pedophiles.
Show me any post where I said "Mitt Romney was a fantastic choice for the GOP and I'm glad they nominated him", and your bizarre rants might make sense.
THAT is a bizarre rant.
THIS is a very relevant political observation to make on this thread in regards to the GOP and their standing on this issue. “”The republican candidate for president in 2012, has supported homosexual Scout masters for 20 years, and restated it during the campaign.””
It is if you've gotten in your time machine and you're posting on a thread in Oct. 2012. But if it's March 2013, your post is as "relevant" as if you were to chime in on a thread about bailouts and point out "1976 Republican Party nominee Gerald Ford refused to bail out New York City" or mention on a thread about tax hikes "1992 Republican Party nominee George H. Bush lied about taxes"
I don’t really understand why you remain so obsessively defensive of Mitt Romney several months after the election.
This thread is about the push to homosexualize the Scouts, something that the recent GOP candidate has advocated for almost 20 years, that issue has obviously not disappeared since the nominee’s defeat.
On a political forum made up largely of republican voters and potential voters knowing where the GOP is in regards to this issue, is important.
This is a political forum, not an LSD club where the platform and positions of the presidential candidate of 5 months ago is too distant to be relevant to us or even to be mentioned in your presence.
Again, show me ANY comment where I defended Mitt Romney's nomination and said he was a great candidate, and your continuous attacks on me would make logical sense.
I really don't understand why you remain so obsessively devoted to taking about Mitt Romney candidacy several months after the election. Yes, we know he's a liberal RINO with no principles. We also know Chris Shays, Connie Morella, and Jim Jeffords are RINOs with no principles, but you don't talk about them every thread and pretend they're still on the ballot and their liberal positions will make any difference now that they're in the private sector.
All it took to send you off on your raging Romney defense was this simple post.
“To: white trash redneck
The republican candidate for president in 2012, has supported homosexual Scout masters for 20 years, and restated it during the campaign.
25 posted on 3/25/2013 10:54:13 AM by ansel12”
And you still seem fit to be tied over that observation.
I agree. Unfortunately, you are not talking about where "the GOP" stands on this issue. If you did, you'd be constantly bringing up statements from Reince Pribeus and the Republican National Platform. Instead, you constantly obsess about where one particular Republican stands on this issue, and that candidate is no longer even running for office. Again, why not obsess about where George H. Bush stands on this issue since you feel bringing up past failed candidates no longer in power somehow pertains to where "the GOP" stands on this issue? How about "informing" us about Dan Quayle's position on the boy scouts? Maybe Arnold Schwarzenegger? He's a pretty well known RINO , too.
Again, show me one single statement where I defended Romney's position. Still waiting.
You are angry and defending Romney, and insisting that his position on homosexualizing the Boy Scouts not be brought up.
You might want to look at your posts and notice that you are really acting bizarre, and it is all about Romney.
If you are indifferent to him, then quit bugging me.
The republican candidate for president in 2012, has supported homosexual Scout masters for 20 years, and restated it during the campaign. THIS is a very relevant political observation to make on this thread in regards to the GOP and their standing on this issue
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.