AndyC wrote:I don't think the subject of sexuality should be imposed onto ANY children's organization - but perhaps that's just me.
Andy, just by way of explanation, BSA had a strong
Christian foundation at its beginning. The oath a scout takes reduces that only to being true to the large concept of "God and Country", as an admission that there are Jewish scouts, and Bahai scouts, and LDS scouts and [any kind of religion] scouts — all united in the concept of being true to their deity, and to their country. It is really a noble thing they are asking young people to take an oath to. Can you imagine an oath like that being popular in thug culture, for instance? I can't. That last line of the oath, the promise to keep one's self "morally straight" may be a vague term in modern culture, but I can assure you that, 50 years ago,
everybody knew what that meant....... and sexual conduct was only a
part of it. "Morally straight" also means to be a truth-teller, to not be a thief, to be reliable, honest, and forthright......
all positive values that we could use more of these days. Today's youth become tomorrow's politicians.
More importantly (and people are more than free to disagree with this or not) "morally straight" was considered to be an entire package,
including the part about sexual conduct. And the sexual conduct component meant
more than simply hewing to heterosexuality. It
also meant treating women with gallantry; being protective toward women and remembering that each one of them could be somebody's sister/daughter/mother, and treating them with the courtesy and respect attendant to their gender. It also meant postponing sexual activity until adulthood - preferably
married adulthood. It held that the institution of marriage was reserved to the union of a man and a woman.
So when the modern culture begins to pick apart and parse the meaning of "morally straight", they may be advancing certain liberties for the 3% of the population who are gay, but they are also picking apart and destroying the unified concept of virtue for the remaining 97%.
We rely on a Constitution which
absolutely depends on a moral and virtuous people. When society begins to redefine morality and virtue, the
natural fallout from that is the leftist idea of a "living, breathing Constitution which means different things for different people......because there are no more moral absolutes." It becomes nothing more than "some list of nazi rules written by a bunch of dead slave-owners".
That figure - 3% - comes from a fairly recent (July, 2014) CDC study which says that only 3% of the population fall into the LGBT category (
LINKEY). As a {small "L"} libertarian, I don't care what people want to do with their ugly parts. As a Bible believing Christian, I'm more concerned about their spiritual conditions. I believe that if the other person is right with God, then his/her behaviors will begin to flow out of that, including their sexual morality. But as a citizen, I have some rights too. That 3% don't get to hold my rights hostage anymore than I get to hold theirs hostage. I think that is fair play. BSA allows gay scouts....just not gay scout
leaders. But if the CDC is correct, then 3% of BSA leaders are
already gay.......and I don't see any news reports about thousands of Americans being summarily drummed out of BSA because of their homosexuality. Actual instances of people being drummed out, or denied leadership positions are so rare that when they
actually happen, the media pick it up as the latest cause célèbre........ and that's just not happening on a day to day basis.
In short, this is a non-existent problem. That means that this regulation isn't in
response to a problem; rather, it is a preemptive move which is part of the leftist LGBT agenda which is stalinist in its nature. They are not
protecting anybody; what they are doing is
forcing affirmation onto everybody.
No less a prominent lesbian feminist than Camille Paglia (whom I think is one very smart cookie) paints the modern LGBT and feminist movements as "stalinist".......and she is essentially libertarian. In this December 2013 article, she says about the "Phil Robertson, Duck Dynasty" flap:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ciety.html
She recently spoke out in support of Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson, supporting his right to express homophobic views.
‘In a democratic country, people have the right to be homophobic as well as they have the right to support homosexuality – as I one hundred percent do.
'If people are basing their views against gays on the Bible, again, they have a right of religious freedom there.' she told Laura Ingraham’s radio show last week.
While as a Christian I cannot think that her lesbian desires are good for her, I also recognize that they are none of my business......just as she recognizes that the ideas of an allegedly homophobic preacher are none of
her business. She disputes what the left does in terms of "thought policing". I do too. I find it reprehensible. In that light, I think it is absolutely absurd to think that a judge in a courtroom could not give a fair trial to a gay defendant, because that judge had once been part of or continues to support BSA.
The fascists who wrote this ruling are violating the rights of conscience of those judges. Under the
exact same standard, I could argue that, as a libertarian independent, I can't get a fair trial from a judge or prosecutor who is a member of either the republican or democrat party, and that therefore, any judge who votes, or who supports voting, cannot be allowed to magistrate over any Texas courtroom.
That is absurd on its face, and so is this non-existent problem that the stalinists have with BSA.
in its current state it would be better off dead.
