Posted on 09/03/2002 1:10:11 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Broadcasting from the Minneapolis affiliate of my radio show last week, I was treated to a Minnesota Twins game. Having become accustomed to baseball games at home in Los Angeles, I observed many differences at the Metrodome. Among them was an absence of foul language from the fans – I felt I had taken a time machine to the 1950s, so family-friendly was the atmosphere. I also appreciated the lack of instant replay on the stadium video screen. Apparently, the Twins management has the rare attitude that fans come to a baseball game to watch the game live, not on a TV screen.
But the Twins feature that most intrigued me was the "kiss cam."
A couple of times between innings, a stadium camera focused on couples, who, when they saw themselves on the large stadium monitor inside a big red heart, gave each other a kiss. It was all quite innocent. I know, because I did not feel at all uncomfortable with my 9-year-old son, and I am zealous about guarding his innocence in the jaded culture America gives its children. Indeed, as often as not, the couples were in their later years, and when they kissed each other, we all felt good. Who isn't happy to see romance flourish in older couples?
And then a thought occurred to me: Wasn't the Metrodome engaging in discrimination? Surely, there were some same-sex couples at the ball game. Why weren't any of them shown kissing on the "kiss cam"? How could it be that in the state of libertarian Gov. Jesse Ventura and Sen. Paul Wellstone, perhaps the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, such discrimination could take place?
I raised this question on my radio show, and Minneapolis callers were unanimous in responding that whether Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, the vast majority of people attending a Twins game would not accept a "kiss cam" depicting two men or two women kissing each other.
If these callers were right – and I suspect they were – it means that even liberal and libertarian Minnesotans do not want to be confronted by public displays of homosexual affection, especially when children are present. But how can that be?
The answer is that many liberals engage in self-deception regarding homosexuality. Their rhetoric of "tolerance" and "diversity" has trapped them into losing touch with their own deepest values and intuitions. Liberals boycott the Boy Scouts because the Boy Scouts want to provide heterosexual scoutmasters as models for their boys. But when actually confronted with homosexuality, most liberals do not react with the acceptance they seek to impose on others.
A writer in a major gay journal noted the phenomenon years ago – how even his most liberal straight friends do not want him to kiss his boyfriends in front of their children.
In the depths of the consciences and hearts of the vast majority of heterosexual liberals, there is a voice that says that male-male or female-female sexual bonding is not quite the same as male-female sexual bonding, and that while the homosexual is every bit as lovable as the heterosexual, homosexual sex is not what we wish for our children. And not because there exists social discrimination against gays, but because we truly want our children to love a member of the opposite sex and to sexually bond with that person.
It is almost impossible for heterosexual liberals, who have redefined tolerance to mean acceptance, to admit all this, but the Twins game made it abundantly clear. That is why the "kiss cam" at the Minneapolis Metrodome will only show heterosexual kissers for the foreseeable future, even as most Minneapolis liberals, like liberals all over America, continue to defame the Boy Scouts and anyone else who holds the same ideal for their children that these liberals hold for theirs.
Here's another telltale clue about the Libs commitment to "tolerance" and "inclusiveness". They suffer from failure of the imagination; they can't really believe, in their hearts, that there can be any negative consequences from such a commitment.
I've been a Scouter now for the last 10 years. I'm active at a level that brings me into contact with volunteers from numerous units besides my own, and my local Council's professional staff as well. And I'm here to tell you that there's plenty of liberals in the BSA, folks. If we all only joined organizations whose politics and policies we agreed with 100%, most of us would be spending our evenings and weekends sitting home watching TV and never going out.
As well, there's certainly enough conservatives who disapprove of the BSA because "don't ask, don't tell" isn't conservative enough for them.
Who thinks up these things?
He talked of this on his radio show last week. NOT ONE of his callers or respondents outside the booth at the Minnesota State Fair endorsed the kiss-cam showing public homosexual affection.
In the depths of the consciences and hearts of the vast majority of heterosexual liberals, there is a voice that says that male-male or female-female sexual bonding is not quite the same as male-female sexual bonding, and that while the homosexual is every bit as lovable as the heterosexual, homosexual sex is not what we wish for our children. And not because there exists social discrimination against gays, but because we truly want our children to love a member of the opposite sex and to sexually bond with that person.
I agree. Hopeful, yet.
Sorry to go off on a small tangent, but does anyone know if Ventura has actually made Minnesota any more libertarian (like, in an economic sense)? Or is it still same old same old over there?
Hi, Ron.
Yes, and there are some pretty liberal Scouters who'd love to get some sort of local-option going that would flank and bypass the BSA leadership in Texas, settling the issue de facto in favor of the James Dales, notwithstanding the BSA's recent SCOTUS victory.
After all, outcomes are what count, right?
Meanwhile, we just convicted another Scouter who turned out to be an active molester, here in Texas.
After all, outcomes are what count, right?
Not sure what you're talking about in that last sentence. I'm going to presume that what you're talking about is that you suspect that some people in the Scouting movement figure that "the ends justifies the means", and so they'll try any way to do an end run around the rules that National has promulgated.
However, National's own processes aren't exactly a model of transparency. What religions are represented on the Relationships Committee? Who are the members, and how are they chosen, and how many votes does each one get? Good luck getting answers to those questions out of Irving. Lots of people in Scouting feel that they have been left out of the process, and that conservative elements in Irving took their own "the ends justifies the means" attitude.
Who does Scouting belong to? A couple of hundred professionals in Irving? The National Executive Board, chosen by who knows what process and criteria? The sponsoring organizations nationwide? Their representatives at National, again chosen by who knows what process and criteria? Or the 6+ Million members of Packs, Troops, Crews, Ships, Teams, and LFL groups? But then, if the latter, you can't just have mob governance.
I am not arguing for moral relativism. There must be standards, and "Trustworthy, Loyal, ...." and "Physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight" sound pretty good to me. But the Scout Oath and Scout Law, like Scripture, are subject to interpretation; and unlike Scripture, can't claim Divine authorship and inspiration. The leadership in Texas can't arrogate to themselves the authority to interpret the SO and SL without letting the rank and file in on how that interpretation was reached.
The leadership in Texas isn't exactly seen as responsive by the rank and file on many matters, not just this. They can just as fairly be accused of "the ends justifies the means" as anyone.
Actually, the most interesting case in all of this is what the Minuteman Council (Boston) is doing. Basically, they seem to be pushing Irving to see just who gets to define what "avowed" means (as in "avowed homosexuals are not suitable role models for children"). National has, since the beginning of the BSA, always allowed local Councils some latitude in interpreting policies to fit local circumstances. The amount of latitude has depended on the policy. Health and safety and membership criteria have usually had the least flexibility.
Remember, the BSA hasn't banned homosexuals outright. They've banned "avowed" homosexuals, and have yet to define what "avowed" means. The BSA knows very well and has stated publicly that it has gay and lesbian members, and specifically has avoided trying to hunt them down; "Don't ask, don't tell" has been the model, and they do a better job of it than the military does. But it varies. In some councils, rumors are enough to get the staff checking you out. In others, you'd have to lead the Gay Pride parade down Main Street. Is National going to set standards? What will National do if another James Dale comes up and this time is supported by the local Council? Stay tuned.
What's truly absurd is that, as the Catholic crisis shows, there's a far higher chance of molestation when homosexual men are around teenage boys than when heterosexual men (normal men) are around teenage girls.
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.