Redstate

What's unfortunate is the fact that BSA thinks you have to be straight to help "build character", and that not being straight is a threat the safety of children.

The Bank of America actually is a privately-owned corporation, and not a governmental entity.  Just as the Boy Scouts have a right to determine their own membership (a right upheld by SCOTUS), so too does Bank of Amerca's private foundation have a right to determine to whom it will distribute money.  The difference between BofA and the ACLU is that the ACLU attempts to use the law to enforce its preferences.  That's a universe of a difference.

I have no problem with the Boy Scouts' policy, and I have no problem with Bank of America's policy.  The pluralism created by America's diverse voluntary associations makes this country stronger.  Would you compel a private charity to donate to groups that you support?  If so, then it's YOU who sounds like an ACLU lawyer.

I think that the "Gay Is Normal" movement ought to stay out of the Boy Scout's Uniforms, I suppose you are correct, in that if we don't want to force the BSA to admit Gays, then we ought not be distrought when the Bank makes there own values decision.

On the other hand, Bank of America may wish to consider that 90% of their customers may disagree with them about the Boy Scouts.

Perhaps a run on their deposits may not be worth forcing a sexual preference decision on a group of young boys.

Just a though.

.

Is quite right.  BoA is doing this because it accords not only with their own corporate policy but because they might get sued if they don't.

However, this doesn't mean that people can't take their money out of Bank of America and move it elsewhere.  If you disagree with this decision by B of A, I encourage you to do so.

I also encourage you to not rely on corporate sponsorship for the Boy Scouts of America in the future.  I expect that more conservative companies with the nondiscrimination policies similar to Bank of America's will be adopting a similar stance very soon.

Given that eventuality, and without a coherent legal challenge to that decision (which will inevitably sour any relations with prospective donors) -- my advice is to contribute directly to the Boy Scouts of America.

It is crystal-clear that the Boy Scouts can no longer rely on corporations, always extraordinarily wary of any kind of discrimination lawsuits, to support them voluntarily.  The rest of us are going to have to take up the slack.

I have no problem with people taking their banking business elsewhere if they disagree with BofA's values.  Isn't a free society great?

Seriously, I really think this story misfired.  Conservatives are supposed to be about defending people's freedom of association.  But when we start attacking others for refusing to associate with groups that we like, how are we any different from the leftist PC police?

homosexuality is an aberration, and forcing the Boy Scouts to perpetuate that practice is harmful to their mission.

Whether the poster in question is entitled, in a free market society, to point out that he is ticked off about Bank of America's decision?

Boddington's not afflicted with the confusion about "state action" like so many lefties are, he's exercising his private right to get exercised.

Honestly, I'd love to hear the legal theory behind this.

But I know that some creative lawyer is going to come up with a discrimination lawsuit that focuses on the fact that a company donates to another private organization in direct contravention of their corporate non-discrimnation policies -- because their son, daughter or friend has been excluded by that group.  

Someone more savvy on the state of play in this regard can probably answer the question more thoroughly.  I can virtually guarantee, however, that there are legal scholars toiling away at creating a rationale for such a suit.  It's fair to say from my time at DePaul that the Boy Scouts may be the most second-hated institution in legal academia, aside from the Bush Administration.

Eventually, they'll come up with something.  In the meantime, we'd better get ready, because companies are notoriously conservative.  

They have any case at all. To put this in context, the government couldn't even tell Bob Jones University that they had to change their antidiscrimination practice - all they could do was revoke their tax-exempt status.

I think BoA isn't tax exempt, and thus has nothing to worry about, here. The only plausible legal analogy that can be drawn is to situations where there have been racially discriminatory conditions placed on donations, but all the court has ever done to those is invalidate the conditions as being against public policy - no liability for the donor at all. In this case, BoA hasn't placed any restrictions of any kind on their donation at all - I just don't see it.

I just worked for them.  I do know how much the Boy Scouts are reviled in certain circles, however, and I am absolutely, 100% positive that there are legal scholars who want to see nothing more than have their funding dry up because of a new cause of action spooking companies into stopping their funding.  And the companies will do it at the first hint of a lawsuit.  Obviously Bank of America had a good reason for denying this funding request, and it was a little more important than somebody being persnickety at the home office.  They've been cowed.    

Shouldn't this story just read "Private company gives money to private organization".

What's the bigger picture again?

I mean aside from the fact that you personally disagree with the company?

that by legally "extorting" the boyscouts, to force them into making a change in their organizational values, is discriminatory in and of itself.

If it is a religious conviction that keeps the Boy Scouts from adopting an attitude of acceptance about homosexuality, then I would think that the BofA is discriminating based on Religious Beliefs.

Seems to me that Anti-Religious discrimination has been on the books far longer than Anti-HowYouLikeYourSex discrimination.

The attitude is schizophrenic.

.

Thanks! I certainly won't bank there now. Not once single ATM fee will they get from me.

Why? How?

Maybe BofA just chose to donate their resources to another organization that doesn't promote intollerance?

The rough pecking order of hatred in liberal legal academia goes something like this:

1. The Bush Administration
   
   
2. The National Rifle Association
   
   
3. The Bechtel and Halliburton Corporations
   
   
4. The Federalist Society
   
   
5. News Corporation and Rupert Murdoch
   
   
6. The Boy Scouts of America
   
   
7. Exxon-Mobil
   
   
8. The American Enterprise Institute
   
   
9. The Heritage Foundation
   
   
10. The 700 Club
    
    
11. The Catholic Church

The order shifts around a little from day to day, and includes a few others depending on the headlines in the New York Times.  But the Boy Scouts is never out of the Top 10.

and a member of the BSA that disagrees strongly with the leadership on gay and atheist issues (the subject of a different thread, perhaps), I gotta disagree with you here.

When that SC decision first came down, I was upset- I admit that I reacted pretty reflexively and simply assumed that in any case involving gay rights, the ACLU's side was correct.  Gays recieve the short end of the stick so often that I simply assumed that when they have a grievance, it's justified.

I came around.  The BSA is a private organization and consequently can exclude whoever they want.  Honestly, I wouldn't have a legal problem with them if they denied blacks membership.  Stupid, bigoted, and short-sighted; yes.  But the Constitution doesn't apply to private groups.

This is the opposite of that.  Here a private group is choosing to withold charitable contributions to the BSA because they disagree with their gay policy (I support that, BTW- the way to change obnoxious policies of private groups is to make your displeasure known, not complain to the government).  The same princple that lets the BSA exclude gays applies to BoA witholding money.  Is every company, including Joe's Resturaunt in Peoria, "pushing a gay rights agenda?"

A final note- I also believe that the BSA shouldn't be given access to government services and facilities (military bases, etc) because their gay policy flies in the face of equal treatment under the law.  But I realize that that's a more contentious issue.

PS- Glad to see the few other comments in this thread.  Pleasantly surprised, and all that.

It's unfortunate when people think that private businesses have an obligation to donate money to their particular pet cause.

...when a charitable organization has grown to depend on gifts from a particular giver, the withdrawl of that gift is much more significant, than if the giver and been approached and refused from the beginning.

.

It's like you people are not even reading the post. Where does the poster say that BofA should be obligated to give to the Boy Scouts, or that this represents the coming of the Dark Night of Fascism™? The private company made a decision, he's peeved with the decision, he exercised his right to express his peevitude, and now here you all are acting like Boddington is the federal government or something.

There are some people here who are confusing state action with private action, alright, but it ain't Boddington.

Or maybe not, depending on whom Bank of America is trying to appeal to.  But they have every right to do it, and they have every prerogative to do so as a company if they feel that it will be good for their business.  Both of these organizations are private and because one of them decides to take its marbles and go home might be something you don't like, but the Boy Scouts asked for the money and Bank of America said no.

The poster is ticked off, and so am I, believe me.  I think we could constructively organize a BofA boycott based on this snub, and tell them how we really feel.  But saying that they don't have the prerogative as a private corporation to control who they donate to is pure folly and it will not stand up in a court of law.  However, the threat from their internal employees and the horrible prejudice against the Boy Scouts in legal academia leads me to believe they made this decision at a fairly high level, to shield themselves from something they feel is coming down the pike.

I'll note in passing that if enough Republican/Conservative voters are stupid enough to stay home this November, they'd better be ready to see more of this in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010...

But saying that they don't have the prerogative as a private corporation to control who they donate to is pure folly and it will not stand up in a court of law.

Did the poster say that BoA should be legally prohibited from making this decision? I just read the post again, and I don't see it.

Fox News.  That has to be in the top 5.

Here.  I know the intent of his post.  I'm just as angry as he is about this decision, maybe more.  But some other people are saying that this amounts to Bank of America "coercing" the Boy Scouts and before we let that wild tangent fly, I was hoping to put a little reality into this situation.  Obviously I'm not doing a very good job.  It's not that I disagree with Boddington AT ALL.  I'm just trying to tell people that

1. It doesn't surprise me
   
   
2. It's going to become more common
   
   
3. People had better be ready for that
   
   
4. There's nothing they can do about it legally

that by legally "extorting" the boyscouts, to force them into making a change in their organizational values, is discriminatory in and of itself.

---

This is exactly what B of A is doing. They will not get one dime of my money because of it.

B of A may very well feel threatened because of a set of lawyers whose job it is to intimidate companies like B of A into not funding the Boy Scouts of America or any other organization who does not "play ball."

In short, B of A is committing the type of descrimination it is claming it is avoiding and pushing a social issue down an organizations throat - the exact opposite of what a business is supposed to be doing.

I would hope that the share holders would give a thumbs down to this, but I dobut they will.

when said organization has a policy that some might find improper, said organization should not be surprised when some cease donating.

By his lights, BoA is "pushing the gay rights agenda" on the BSA.  Fanciful.

Trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.

Which of those things can a gay person not be?

I'm searching honestly for something in your comment that would indicate something other than, "I'm peeved with this decision." I'm still missing it.

Decision by Bank of America, it might help if some here at RedState read their Newsroom highlights covering "Awards and Recognition."

Bank of America is a company that loudly and proudly trumpets its commitment to diversity.  The Boy Scouts of America is not viewed as an organization that promotes diversity; instead, it is seen by people who promote diversity as an archaic and discriminatory administration that unfairly and improperly discriminates against homosexuals.  Lots of bankers are homosexuals, and lots of homosexuals have lots of money to put in a bank.  

Therefore, the Bank of America has decided not to donate money to the Boy Scouts.  It's just as simple as that.  I don't think IBM donates to the Boy Scouts anymore, either, although I might be mistaken.  IBM was one of the first mega-corporations to advertise in Out Magazine, but today there are many others.  And private organizations like the BSoA who do not match up with the public, advertised, and celebrated commitment to diversity that these corporations find essential to their survival in modern corporate America are simply not going to get the money.

It's about time some people here realized how much the landscape has shifted.  I really think a lot of RedStaters are living in serious denial -- this is a diverse country now, and frankly any company that claims to be nationwide is going to abstain from funding organizations like the BSoA who are lightning rods for gay-rights activists.

Is using its finacial clout to force its views on others. That's called blackmail to some

want to have their humble pie and eat it too.  

That discontinue the donations shouldn't be surprised when they irritate and lose customers as a result. I don't see the problem here. Nobody has said the BSA needs to be forced to give money to some organization.

Nobody has said BoA needs to be forced to give money to some organization.

that BA is exhibitting in that letter?

The DoD has contracted BoA to handle all its charge cards. Everyone in uniform has a govt card run by BoA.

I dont have a choice but to give them my business.

that's the free market for you - whoever makes the best bid gets the contract.

unless its a HUD bid and the firm happens to be run by a liberal.

But you have this a little backward.  And when I say that, I hope you'll understand that I also don't like this decision by Bank of America.  But at least from my vantage point, right now, Bank of America is doing the BSoA a favor by dissociating themselves.  The reason is that Bank of America is not going to change its corporate tune and it will never change its internal corporate policy about "diversity."  Given the continual friction this would cause between the two organizations, in a way this is a simple recognition of the fact that they have to go their separate ways.

I encourage people to support the Boy Scouts privately, and I will do so.  But in fact, the Bank is saying:  "Listen, you don't match up with our stated, very public, very well-advertised positions.  We can't keep giving you money, unless we do more to make you change to conform to those positions."

I've seen this happen before and I'm a real super-duper pessimist about this:  people who want to support the Boy Scouts are going to have to do so from the ground up, all over again.  You can only count on companies to do what is "correct" from a values sense when it makes business sense for them also.  And right now, supporting the Boy Scouts makes no business sense for Bank of America.  

And it'll make even less business sense for other businesses to do so if the Donks take back Congress in November.  

I was a Boy Scout.  And, I've been distressed by the slow erosion of corporate support for the BSoA.  It's as if the ACLU is trying to starve the organization into submission by cutting off its access to funds and government facilities.  And, I suppose the ACLU is OK with lots of boys losing access to Scouting, as long as the ACLU's greater cause is served.  I guess that makes the Scouts expendable, or collateral damage, in the eyes of the ACLU.

IMO we're better off for having it as part of our community.  And by shunning the BSoA, again IMO, BOA deserves a healthy dose of scorn. I don't bank with it now, but I did use its ATMs.  Not anymore, if I can help it.  

forget my comments.  Read the thread's title.  "Pushing the Gay Rights Agenda?"  Get serious.  The tone is one of absolute entitlement to BoA's funds.

He's not saying, BoA is wrong, the BSA's policy isn't discriminatory.  He's saying, BoA should ignore their qualms and cough up or they're San Francisco liberals.

Whenever a powerful institution uses its finacial clout to say 'Hey you a bunch of bigots and we're not giving you a penny until you become open-minded like us.' then that is holding a group like the Boy Scouts hostage since that group depends on BoA's money.

If anyone, for any reason, says "do x or else we will not give you any more money," they are certainly pushing an agenda. That is the point of the letter. They didn't just quietly stop contributing to the BSA. We know why they discontinued their contributions, and we know what their demands are to reinstate those contributions.

Nowhere does the OP say that BoA if required to give money to the BSA. The point here is to let people know so they can take their business elsewhere if they wish. There is nothing wrong with that.

to an extreme. The sexketeers have really scored a home run, by framing sexual deviancy in such a way that it is on par with human differences such as race, gender, hair and eye color, fatness, skinniness....

I don't hate homosexuals, but I do not have to accept the engineered notion that homosexuality is "normal", and I do not have to accept as a forgone conclusion that homosexuality is a good and natural condition. I don't hate people that stick objects in their ears. I do not have to accept or condone the practice of placing objects in ears, and I do not have to teach my children that sticking odd objects in their ears is an acceptable choice to make for their lives.

I believe what has happened here and around the globe, is that people with homosexual tendencies have used their positions as scientists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and academics to shape research and the conclusions from such.

They have successfully framed the debate in such a way, that prevents the discussion the subject from a viewpoint that homosexuality is deviant. It is destructive, and frankly it goes against the very laws of nature. Whether you believe that there is a God that designed the human body or not, there is really no way to argue that the lower end of the human colon was designed for anything but the excretion of digestive waste.

The attachment of human to human relationships, to the practice of deviant sexual behavior has further soiled the debate.  Extremely close relationships between people of the same gender used to be called best friends. In fact best friend relationships can be such that the individuals would give their lives for the other. But adding a sexual component to close relationships is, was, and always has been unnatural and illogical.

This institutional move to force normalization of sexual deviancy upon the rest of us just takes the cake. And I haven't even touched on the move to the forced normalizing of sexual deviancy upon the institution of family and marriage.

No... let's not teach hatred of people who are different, but let's also not teach the idea that whatever comes around must be accepted and embraced with open arms.

.

...the Boy Scouts took Legal Academia on that snipe hunt?

Seriously, why does Legal Academia have it in for a bunch of kids who like to go camping?  Is it mostly the no-gay-scoutmasters thing?  It certainly isn't because of Scouting's Deep Pockets.

Colleague (sp?) next cubicle over is a Scoutmaster.  Said the only reason the Scouts don't allow gay scoutmasters is because parents have to have absolute faith in the people who will be taking their boys miles away to go camping.  Most parents wouldn't trust gay men to supervise their boys in those circustances, and so wouldn't allow them to join scouting.

--furious

The military doesn't allow open homosexuals to serve in uniform, either.

--furious

I think the BSA's policy on gays is wrongheaded but not a justification to deny military bases.

Their exclusion of atheists, however, is.  I don't think the gov't should endorse a group that discriminates on the basis of religion.

Cue boos.

The sexketeers have really scored a home run, by framing miscegenation in such a way that it is on par with human differences such as race, gender, hair and eye color, fatness, skinniness....

I don't hate miscegenists, but I do not have to accept the engineered notion that interracial relationships are "normal", and I do not have to accept as a forgone conclusion that blacks marrying whites is a good and natural condition. I don't hate people that stick objects in their ears. I do not have to accept or condone the practice of placing objects in ears, and I do not have to teach my children that sticking odd objects in their ears is an acceptable choice to make for their lives.

I believe what has happened here and around the globe, is that people with attractions to people of different races have used their positions as scientists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and academics to shape research and the conclusions from such.

They have successfully framed the debate in such a way, that prevents the discussion the subject from a viewpoint that miscegenation is deviant. It is destructive, and frankly it goes against the very laws of nature. Whether you believe that there is a God that designed the human body or not, there is really no way to argue that the black man and the white woman are meant to be together.

The attachment of human to human relationships, to the practice of deviant sexual behavior has further soiled the debate.  Extremely close relationships between people of different races used to be called best friends. In fact best friend relationships can be such that the individuals would give their lives for the other. But adding a sexual component to close relationships is, was, and always has been unnatural and illogical.

This institutional move to force normalization of sexual deviancy upon the rest of us just takes the cake. And I haven't even touched on the move to the forced normalizing of sexual deviancy upon the institution of family and marriage.

No... let's not teach hatred of people who are different, but let's also not teach the idea that whatever comes around must be accepted and embraced with open arms.

A child is born of Asian, African, Caucasian, or Indian parents.  Homosexual practitioners elect to stimulate themselves sexually by misusing their own physiology.  Trying to equate the two just lays bare the absurdity of the homosexual argument.

To be honest, I don't care what you do with your body parts... but I do care when you stive to force the rest of us to believe it isn't odd, and should be embraced as normal.

It is truely an insult to the concept of diversity, and it stands clear for all to see, just like a self-service haircut performed in the dark of night.

.

would be my guess.

The vast majority of those that practice "alternative lifestyles" have no interest in being considered "normal"

Instead, they want little more than acceptance and recognition that their personal choice should not be a basis for excluding them from things that hetro couple enjoy, such as benefits and basic rights.

While some more radical ones push for legal marriage, most would be more than satisfied with a legally recognized civil union

then the solution is for the BSoA to no longer depend on Bank of America's money.  IE, those who support the Boy Scouts need to do financially.

You're either standing on one side of the line, or the other. People have every right to choose which side they want to be on.

If you choose the side that bank of America is on, and you use your money to pressure others to accept your position as they did, you also have the right to do that. But in taking that action, you become activist, and you are "pushing an agenda". There is nothing "fanciful" about that. Calling it "fanciful" is to obscure their action by saying "it's all in your head". It's the old Groucho Marx line..."Are you going to believe me, or your lying eyes?".

At least Bank of America openly declared their position by putting it down on paper and sending the letter. Let's be as honest about what they are doing as they are.

Do not conflate homosexual 'sex' with interracial marriage.  There is no comparison.

They have been cowed, internally, by members of activist homosexual and advocate organizations who have a great deal of clout in the public arena. They found out Bank of America was giving to the Scouts. They threaten to make it a public issue and use the media to paint Bank of America as homophobic, bigoted, repressive, and part of the "monolithic right". Seeking to avoid public embarrassment, Bank of America makes a decision to stop overlooking the disparity of their policy wording with the Boy Scouts policy, and issue the letter, hoping the whole thing will just quietly go away.

Of course, it will not go away. Bank of America, like so many other companies of late, has just been caught in the huge catch 22 of this issue. Once you get threatened by the homosexual lobby, you have to choose sides publicly. You either choose to anger the lobby, which has a loud PC voice that can tarnish your reputation, or you choose to anger the vast majority of Americans, and hope not too many of them hear. But it never works.

Just as Bank of America has the right to give or withhold private money, so the American public has the right to withold theirs, and take their business elsewhere. I can guarantee with 99% certainty that within a week, Bank of America will recieve a letter from numerous organizations as well as individuals who will threaten a boycott, and within 6 weeks there will be one.

This is what happened to Ford Motor Company in 05-06, and it has caused their stock to go down and already poor sales have decreased even more. Their dealers have pleaded with the company to relent, but to no avail.

If I were a Corp. in todays climate, I'd keep my charitable dollars going to building structures and parks, and avoid the catch 22 all together. I would instead create a corporate climate in which personal giving, especially by executives, was expected and encouraged.

of degeneracy.  No? In a more balanced, less cause crazed society, who you have sex with would be a non-public issue and a no-advocacy situation.  To push advocacy on a organization for children, digusting, bespeaks an emptiness of moral concern and a promotion of sex that even if it were hetrosexual would be wrong.

       The foundation of the homosexual rights movement rests on one thing, and one thing only, who you go to bed with, BTW a male.  It's fair to say that such a cause has somewhat less dignity then say the abolition of slavery, or the historical spread of democracy, or women's voting rights. As above, degeneracy!

       The BSA business has been going on for years and is of a piece with other assaults on vouluntary association and the rules and customs related to it.  You may be reminded of the absurd,if not grotesque, attack on the Masters Golf tournament not long ago.  A part of this phenomenon is less about claimed rights than those  cancers of humanity,power and aggression, with more than a little help from government when it can get it's clubbed foot in the door.

      I wonder what lessons have been retained from the Catholic Church's gay problem.  You in turn may wonder why the indignant have been calmed and now support gay scoutmasters with a seemingly inconsistent enthusiasm.

       

but none on basic rights. Homosexuals have the same basic rights as anyone else, and need no special recognition to exercise them. Creating that national straw argument by their lobby was an attempt to force society to officially recognize them and normalize their behavior.

you have shot wide of your mark. In using sarcastic analogy, you must be sure your factors equate. In this case, you left out biology.

You misread the letter from Bank of America to the Boy Scouts. The BoA letter does not say that BoA was withholding the contribution because of the BSA's stance on gays. The letter merely listed BoA's nondiscrimination policy, which includes both sexual orientation and religion.

The Boy Scouts also discriminate on the basis of religion.

Can you back up your claim that BoA's decision was primarily based on sexual orientation?

The Scout Oath

On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the scout law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight. (emphasis mine)

As a current Scoutmaster I appreciate and support the Boy Scouts' stance. It takes guts to stand up to the onslaught of the current GLTB agenda. They are being attacked relentlessly for a desire to protect the boys in their charge.

Leaders in Boy Scouts should be able to live up to the standards expected of the boys.

I'll note in passing that if enough Republican/Conservative voters are stupid enough to stay home this November, they'd better be ready to see more of this in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010...

I'll add that the last court decision involving the Boy Scouts and this stance was decided 5-4. A one vote swing is how close they are to having their stance decided for them.

issued on the basis of religion is ridiculous. First, the BSA only promotes the belief in God, not a specific religion. They have Muslim troops, as well as other religions. The only ones who won't take the pledge are athiests. Are you telling me they have a powerful enough lobby to effect the actions of Bank of America?

It also ignores the myriad of similar stories that have peppered the news for many years, all dealing with the homosexual lobby's "diversity" issue. Name me one story in which a company pulled money from a group over religious intolerance, and I'll give you fifty that dealt with the homosexual issue.

More liberal "what if" dust. Alright everyone, let's brush ourselves off and get on with the discussion.

If you're referring to the 9th circus, it will simply be appealed and overturned.

The BSA are being punished by the gay rights movement nationwide because they will not provide homosexuals with young boys.  We see a full bore movement by the overclass to impose its values upon this country institution by institution.

Who can doubt that what is being done to the BSA is precisely what the sodomites have in mind for Christian churches that hold to the Biblical position on homosexuality ?  Who can doubt that in the name of 'tolerance and diversity' 3% of the population will use the power of their allies in the courts, academia, and the media to try to silence the other 70% if the Democrats win in 2008 ?  We saw in the Canadian liberal threats against Christian churches and Dean's recent threat against Christian churches and the prosecution of Pastor Green in Sweden for 'hate speech' precisely where the agenda of militant godlessnes, of which the gay rights movement is the spearhead, leads.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/28/scotus.gay.boyscouts/

This is not the 9th Circuit. This is the Supreme Court.

Thanks for the heads up.

Hey look dummy, Gays should not be discriminated against or bashed, and yes most gay people are not pedophiles. But guess what? if you make it normal for gays to be scout leaders Those who are pedophiles will be drawn to it just like a magnet! You must always err on the side of the safety of children. Likewise, the Girl Scouts don't let young men who are not fathers of one of the girls to take them out unsupervised on camp-outs. That would just be madness.

  And yet that's what some left wingers advocate, madness.

Hey I have an Idea for all those liberal do- gooders, I am a Heterosexual man, let me take your Daughters out unsupervised on a Girl Scout campout! After all, MOST heterosexuals are not child molestors. WHEEEEEE!

And believe me, so am I.  I think a boycott of Bank of America is in order.  But there's a difference between being upset and angry and being able to prove anything in a court of law that would result in penalties against Bank of America.  They're a private company that decides to give its charity money to whomever they want.  We can raise holy hell about it and protest them and take our money out of their bank and promise never to do business with them again because of it, but the system works to protect the prerogatives of private companies just like Bank of America, and my guess is that they've made this decision for a combination of business and legal reasons that are unreachable through a "reverse-discrimination" lawsuit.

how it's a beneficial business decision on their part.

get the short end of the stick in our society? I just don't see that. Affirmative action? Yup, Kidd Glove treatment in the media? Got that. Gay Marriage? Well, its inevitable, despite overwhelming disapproval.

  And they have managed to somehow get most elite opinion to think that letting openly gay scout masters take little boys out on camp-outs is a good thing. As i said in a previous post. Its not that most gays are child molesters, its that those who ARE pedophiles will be drawn to that situation.  Its a really horrible Idea.

Any entity who has "grown to depend on gifts from a particular giver".

Whether that entity be a single mother of three children by three different fathers in the inner city or even the Boy Scouts of America.

Him what pays the piper has always called the tune.

with this argument is that very often, child molesters and pedophiles are not openly gay, or often are not even gay at all.  If there was a way to screen out pedophiles and child molesters, using "gay" as a filter isn't it.  

paragraph. This is a stunning example of inconsistency on the part of the MSM, state prosecution, and individuals that has recieved no press to speak of.

The homosexual lobbies and liberals took great pains to paint the entire priest molestation issue as pedophilia rather than homosexuality, which was the huge percentage of cases. And the root cause of this, which was a culture of homosexuality in the recruitment and training of priests, barely got a mention and very little play in the MSM.

The fact is, this was a catch 22 on several levels for the liberal cause. Acadamia elitests, the homosexual lobby, and some in the liberal ranks support the man-boy organizations at different levels. They also villify the Catholic Church on numerous issues. Presented with their options, they had to mitigate to some degree their attack on the Church, and throw over the man-boy org to throw the scent off the real culprit, which was homosexual predation.

And your main point was well taken. We just witnessed a huge, public, and very painful ordeal over homosexual priests accosting young boys who were in their charge, over a period of many years. And now we have lobbies, corporations, and individuals right here on Red State demanding that the Boy Scouts allow the same situation, out in remote areas alone with the boys. Great moral position.

all of us not to stay home at election time. If nothing else, it assures us a chance at getting judges in who will uphold the Constitution. Thanks for pointing it out.

My advice, frankly, for anyone who still has their head in the sand about this is to start reading.  Head on over to your local newsstand and pick up a copy of OUT Magazine, a copy of The Advocate and go talk to some of the people associated with the local Bisexual-Gay-Lesbian-Transgendered Alliance at your nearest college campus.  You'll find out very quickly that the gay-rights lobby is extremely well-organized, has a proven strategy for influencing the policies of both government and corporations, and that its legal apparatus and grassroots organizing is run by a lot of very, very smart people who know how to get what they want and are not going to give up until they do.

If you want to support the Boy Scouts, the best way to do it is to donate to them privately and put financial pressure on the companies who are distancing themselves from them.  And most importantly, to understand that you're not fighting against a ragtag band of flamboyant whiners and nincompoops hanging out on the fringe any more -- you're up against some of the brightest, savviest, and best-organized people, politically speaking, in the United States who are liberally and actively supported at our largest universities.

The Boy Scouts of America are a fine and outstanding institution of which I was a part for many years.

That Bank of America would succumb to the pressures of an organized effort outside the mainstream of the body politic is fine.  If they want to stop giving money to the Boy Scouts because of the homosexual lobby, more power to them.

But I disagree with them.  And I don't have a problem with Boddington or anyone else calling them out on the fact that they are financially impacting one of the best organizations in the country because that organization takes seriously the raising of American boys and wants to protect them from certain issues, problems, and agendas.

And, oh by the way, it is rather disingenuous of Bank of America to be making money off the Department of Defense with its "don't ask, don't tell" policy discriminating against open homosexuals in the military and then to not give money to the Boy Scouts.

basic animal biology? Since homosexuality is observed in at least 50 other species, how would explain the unnaturalness (is that a word?) of it? Some kind of vast left-wing animal conspiracy?

It is SPECIFICALLY mentioned several times in the Bible that homosexuality is not looked kindly upon by God (ever hear of Soddom and Gomorrah?).

And Reverent, here, is referring to following God's laws.

this at least filters out a significant portion of those who might be potential pedophiles. A much higher percentage group drawn to little boys I might add.

ever been around very many gay people should immediately recognize there is an obvious biological basis. When you see women shaped like men you can't say it's an entirely elective persuasion.

With that said, gay people did what they had to do to get along all throughout history. It's only in the last few decades that some have tried to form a kind of political identity movement associated with it and an agenda to go with it. There is no reason why the Boy Scouts should give in to the PC demands of their sponsors.

ought to be considered. Why would a gay man want to be a scoutmaster? Who would let a straight man take charge of Girl Scouts?

Why would a man want to wait tables at Hooters?

We could go on indefinitely with this. Whatever academic legal arguments they can make, we always wonder why these cases are brought by these plaintiffs.

Of course "straight" didn't receive it's current definition as heterosexual until recently, so I'm guessing (hoping) that you're not using that word as a basis for your arguement. So let's assume you mean morally - as in homosexuality is not moral. Well, that depends on who's morals we're talking about. And the debate is swinging away from your side every day, isn't it? I've often wondered how current Boy Scouts in the Episcopal church resolve the issue of either following their openly gay bishop or the policy of the Boy Scouts - what's more important church or scouts? Perhaps this is one reason for the constant decline in membership since 2000.

Also, back to morality - Baden-Powell believed strongly in the negative effects of masturbation, while he never really mentioned homosexuality - not that he supported homosexuality, but we know that definitely rejected masturbation. If you truly are trying to preserve the scouting of his era, shouldn't you also be trying to purge the masurbaters - as a former Eagle Scout I can tell you there were and likely are many. If you are not, are you suggesting that maybe sexual policies can change, as they have in the birthplace of Scouting, the UK? And maybe the BSA, like many other scouting groups could accept homosexuality, just as they've accpeted masturbation?

Can make this decision because it Is their money, what bothers me is that they did it so quietly.  Trying to sneak around to the back door (no pun intended).

If they had just come out and told the BSA National Conference that "Hey, we're sorry, but policy has changed.  We can no longer support you because of x,y, and z.  Can you please rescind your requests?" then this whole debate would be pretty much moot.

But, no.  They denied a single council at a time, trying to keep it quiet.

This smacks of dishonesty and cowardice.

Built the Boy Scouts around the precepts of Christian Morality.  As is evident in our Code and Law.

And your views of the BSA are Perfectly evident in the comment "as a former Eagle Scout..."

Once a Scout, Eagle or otherwise, you are a Scout forever unless you turn your back on what you were taught there.

I love the argument...Exodus 35:2 SPECIFICALLY says that anyone who works on the Sabbath shall be put to death. Perhaps Boy Scouts should also be stationed outside of Wal-mart on weekends (Saturdays for Jewish troops) to ensure that they are being reverent by following God's laws.

Last time I checked the Episcopal church is still Christian and evidently their morality still allows for homosexuality. I don't see any conflict here.

Incedently, I say former, as I will not return to the Boy Scouts until they change their policies, which I am actively working to speed along. I hate to tell you that this is inevitable.

They just have to take them to court and spend their money defending themselves...

Because I, like the Very large part of the Episcopalian Church that is separating from the larger "church" no longer see that branch of the Episcopalians as Christians.

It has to do with claiming to follow Christ's law and yet publicly declaring that they know better than Christ did.

and I suppose it would also encourage zoophiliacs to join and take advantage on horse trips. Thank goodness the ASPCA already has protections its own against this.

that they go out and force their views on others rather than impose them on their own organization.  You can put away the straw man now.

and please give me a quote from Christ on his beliefs about homosexuality. I'll wait.

but none of those boys better have part-time jobs on Sunday, cause God is gonna be pissed.

reason to post this diary.  That so Many people disagree with them is reason for it to reach the FrontPage.

At the rate that Bank of America is going, they may just lose that contract when it comes due for renewal in 10 years.

After all, they've already "lost" over 5,000 soldiers' data.

but most child molesters are heterosexuals (99%, says one study). So statisitically, boys would actually be safer if all their leaders were homosexual.

Let's put aside the Bank Of America's rights as a private entity to associate with whom its chooses, namely through its donations.

What's wrong with holding the BOA accountable for its actions (or inactions) as a leading citizen in our communities?  Actually, a corporate citizen.

Seems to me that the ACLU has decided to starve the Boy Scouts of its best sources of funding.  They're free to do this, of course, as I am free to boycott BOA.  But, I've no illusions that my BOA boycott (were I to mount one) would do much to BOA's corporate bottom line.  And, if I were to succeed in killing off the Bank of America, there are many fine banks to take its place.

Who, however, will replace the Boy Scouts in a community?  As the ACLU and its allies succeed in choking off funds, and denying the BSA access to parks and other public facilities, and silently but relentlessly building a public image of the Boy Scouts as a proactively homophobic organization...  

When, their efforts begin to bear fruit, and more and more Boy Scout troops go under or lose strength--to what organizations will we send our young boys to learn about character, and team building?  These tenets are central to Scouting.  Do you think your son's traveling league soccer coach is primarily concerned with making him into a good young man?  Maybe.  But, he might be more interested in making him a great soccer player, and be unconcerned if he becomes a jerk in the process.

When I was in Scouting, one thing I quickly learned --from both my fellow Scouts, but most importantly, my Scoutmasters --was that it wasn't OK to be a jerk in life.  No matter how talented I was.

The ACLU and BSA have argued over whether the Boy Scouts can exclude gay members.  The Supreme Court sided with the Boy Scouts.

In response, the ACLU has apparently decided that it prefers the Boy Scouts to simply disappear from American society , instead of coexisting with an organization it disagrees with.

So, how best to get rid of the Scouts?  Well, the frontal assault (i.e., lawsuits) didn't work.  And, the Scouts still enjoy lots of popular support.  Remember about two years ago, when the ACLU's long legal battle with the Pentagon over military base sponsorship of Scouting troops resulted in a Pentagon decision to back away from Scouting?  Big victory for the ACLU, right?  WRONG!  Once the public got wind of it, and the SECDEF publicly voiced his support for the Boy Scouts, and Congress OVERWHELMINGLY passed a resolution in favor of the Boy Scouts--the ACLU quickly backed off.  But they didn't quit.

They simply returned to the termite approach.  In the shadows of lawsuits and legal motions, out of the public eye and public's awareness, they contined to chip away at the institution of Scouting.  As I mentioned above, they slowly stigmatize the BSA, deny individual troops access to public facilities--and scare off their most capable financial contributors.  

It's working.  The foundation of Scouting is taking a beating.  It's hard enough to run a Scout troop nowadays.  Potential Scoutmasters often have long commutes to/from work.  There's not much time to plan, organize and execute good Scouting events.  

Now, throw fundraising on top of that.  That can easily be the straw that breaks the camel's back, and pushes good people away from Scouting.

I sense, that that is the ACLU's plan.  

Find the citizens in your community--private or corporate--who are most capable of giving money, and scare them off.  Then, threaten them with bad publicity. Threaten protests in front of their businesses or homes. Threaten lawsuits.  You can even acknowledge that you'll lose, most likely.  But the defendant will have to pay to litigate, endure the bad publicity--and then, you can simply file another lawsuit.  Give them an out, by pointing out their need to respect "diversity."  Make it, so the easiest and safest choice is to cut off the Boy Scouts.  And all the while, don't hold press conferences to announce what you're doing.  Just do it.

Clever.  And effective.

Well, I'm glad Boddington said what he said.  And for all of those who rush to BOA's defense--IMO, bunk!

Here's two areas where I feel that BOA is dodging its responsibility to the rest of the community:

• The community will be its healthiest when its citizens--private AND corporate--contribute to its upkeep and well-being. Bank of America undoubtedly makes lots of money from the communities where it has branches and ATMs. As with any business, it's more likely to prosper in a community comprised of good citizens, people who are of good character, hard-working and honest.  Does BOA think such good citizens grow from the ground?  No, it takes responsible adults and good civic organizations to help create such citizens.  If BOA wants to derive profit through its associations with the citizens in a community, then what is wrong with those citizens asking companies such as BOA to help sustain the civic organizations that help make the community such a good place to begin with?
  
• BOA has the means to give enough money to make a difference.  In church, I expect the richer people to tithe more than the poorer parishoners.  Now, technically, I suppose I should only expect the richer parishoners to donate in proportion to the amount of support they derive from the church.  But, that's not how life works, is it?  To keep our communities good and strong, those who have more have traditionally given more.  They view it as their civic duty, and they also sense it's something they should do.  

Anyway, those are my thoughts.  Yes, I concede that BOA doesn't have to give its money to anyone.  But it shouldn't be allowed to pretend that, if it and all the other major corporate BSA sponsors eventually choose to withhold funding for "diversity" concerns, that they should be immune from criticism if Scouting suffers as a result.  

Our communities will be worse off if Scouting suffers.  The ACLU has apparently decided that, if Boy Scouting won't change, then it should die.  They lack the courage to say this publicly.  But, if you connect the dots their actions create, the picture that results is easy to recognize.  For that, the ACLU, BOA, the San Diego politicians who have tried to keep the Sea Scouts out of Balboa Park, and all the other termites eating away at the foundation of Boy Scouting deserve our contempt.  

Now, I'm off to donate to the Boy Scouts!  

What makes you think there is a correlation? Your gut feeling? Does it matter to you, that according to the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse:

In a study of 269 cases of child sex abuse, only two offenders where found to be gay or lesbian. More relevant was the finding that of the cases involving molestation of a boy by a man. Seventy-four percent of the men were or had been in a heterosexual relationship with the boys mother or another female relative. the conclusion was found that "a child's risk of being molested by his or her relatives' heterosexual partner is over one hundred time greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual." (source)

Can you show me any credible scientific evidence that there is a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia?

This is what happened to Ford Motor Company in 05-06, and it has caused their stock to go down and already poor sales have decreased even more. Their dealers have pleaded with the company to relent, but to no avail.,

You seriously think that political activism is the cause of Ford's stock decline?

In a more balanced, less cause crazed society, who you have sex with would be a non-public issue and a no-advocacy situation.  To push advocacy on a organization for children, digusting, bespeaks an emptiness of moral concern and a promotion of sex that even if it were hetrosexual would be wrong

You say that who you have sex with should be a non-public issue but you are OK with people discriminating based on who you have sex with.  

If people weren't so concerned with what other people do in the bedroom this would never be an issue.

Pelo is right - a private organization has the right to contribute or not contribute to the Boy Scouts as they see fit.  The problem is that Bank of America does not apply their standards across the board.  BOA services the travel card that is required to be maintained by US military personnel and used for their official travel.  If BOA were serious about their stand, and not just piling on the Boy Scouts, they would not provide credit card services for the U.S. military.

are seperate from prescriptions of punishment.

Just because nobody would advocate the death of a person who worked on the Sabbath that doesn't mean the moral principle in establishing the Sabbath as a day of rest isn't still important.

The same goes for a lot of other things.  The Old Testament advocated stonig of rebellious children, I doubt anyone would advocate such today, but I think we can all agree that rebellious children are not a good thing.

As for this whole argument-the Boy Scouts are a private organization, and have every right to establish and set the perameters for membership and leadership, and that includes the right to exclude some groups they feel don't meet the purposes of their mission.  I would also argue in this case that the Bank of America is a private organization, and they have every right to determine that the Boy Scouts' policies do not meet the criteria the have set for donations of money, they are well within their rights to stop sending checks to the BSA.

Although, I am curious as to how you are working to change the Boy Scouts' policy, if you have rejected your membership in the organization.  

What really gets me about this whole situation is that the Bank of America is THE bank for the military.  At least for the AF.  Hubby has one of thier gov't issued credit cards in his wallet and we have banked with them for over 16 years in their military banking branch.  It wasn't BOA when we started with them.  It was Bank of Fort Sam Houston and then it got bought out two or three times and BOA is our end result.  We have purchased two vehicles through their loan dept. etc...

Hubby is an Eagle scout and part of the Order of the Arrow.  Boy Scouts, in part, was his ticket out of small town America.  As a teenage boy, BSA gave him lots of fabulous opportunities that a small town country boy just wouldn't have had otherwise.  He is sickened by what liberal America has tried to do to this institution.

We no longer give money to the United Way because of their treatment of the Boy Scouts.  Now, we are going to have to find a new bank.  I guess it is finally time to dump all of our eggs into USAA, althoug I really don't want to.  And maybe it is time for hubby to stand up to the powers that be and refuse to use the gov't card and use our private one instead.

two of my sisters former college roommates came out of the closet about 5-6 years after college, and both were very feminine women.

You are hanging on too tightly to stereotypes.  While you might make an arguement for biological basis, I don't think how butch a woman is or how feminine a man is provides the evidence.  

the long and damning silence begins

the animal kingdom has caved to the gay agenda!

Most experts put child molesters in a completely different category. Men who molest boys are usually not gay or straight - they are child molesters. Thus, filtering out gays doesn't do anything to prevent sexual abuse, since it has nothing to do with the gender of the victim.

especially, when you are talking about boys in older adolescense who are scouts.

I would never in a million years permit my teenage daughters to go on a camping trip with a single, heterosexual male.  I don't know that I would be comfortable with my teenage son going on a camping trip with a single homosexual man for the same reason.

Granted there are safety policies that can be put into place to help control this stuff (not permitting adults to be alone with scouts, keeping doors open, etc).  But I don't think this is an argument that can be ignored or brushed away.

There is a good reason I wouldn't let my daughter be in a girl scout troop run by a single heterosexual man, and isn't that I think all heterosexual men are out to have sex with my daughter, but what about that one who is out to have sex with my daughter, unless he has a tattoo on his forehead, nobody is going to know, therefore saying they can't do it, is the safer policy.

If we were talking about male scout leaders for the girl scouts, you would certainly be right. But we are talking about male scout leaders for the boy scouts.

The 99% figure is laughable. It's from one hospital with a sample size of a couple hundred. It also focuses only on reported crimes. I think there is a much lower incidence of homosexual pedophilia among very young kids, where it is likely to be reported, than there is among, say, 12-16 year old kids, where it is very likely to not be reported at all.

I guess I didn't get my Day of Silence flyer from my cat.  Do you by chance have an extra copy?

Pedophiles are drawn to their victims because of age, not because of gender. Pedophilia has almost nothing to do with normal sexual behavior practiced by adults.

to keep the WH and the Senate.

I was asked by somebody what I thought of Bush, and if I regretted voting for him.

My answer is simple, even if I hated everything else, having Roberts and Alito on the SCOTUS is enough reason for me to never regret my vote.  Just the idea that Kerry may have chosen those two spots gives me the willies.

Screening out gays simply would not do anything to eliminate pedophiles. Most pedophiles are not homosexual - they are pedophiles. It's a completely different category.

between children and older teenagers, FWIW.

269 cases at a local hospital make a worthless "study" design.

1. Most importantly: it skews the sample very, very young. Most of the reported cases of homosexual molestation involve 12-16 year old victims, where it is unlikely to be reported and the victims probably aren't going to end up at the hospital. In order to even have access to very young victims, you will probably have to be in the household. There are also completely different classes of pedophiles out there. The ones who are interested in 15 year old boys are usually not the same as the ones interested in 8 year old boys. This ignores the former group and focuses on the latter.
   
   
2. It also makes the mistake of classifying all these perpetrators as straight just because they happen to be involved in a heterosexual relationship. It is not unusual for homosexual men to be involved in heterosexual relationships. I don't know if that makes them bisexual, or in denial, or opportunists, but it does happen a whole heck of a lot. It isn't like your sexual orientation prohibits you from participating in activity not consistent with same.
   
   
3. Small sample size
   
   
4. One geographic area

How much push for civil unions have you heard lately? None at all. It isn't acceptable to the gay rights community any more. They realize that once they get civil unions (which I would have no problem giving them), they will never get SSM. They'd lose all their arguments for it. They trot out this benefits stuff in defense of SSM but if that's gone, they have nothing left.

to this comparison.

But I'll agree with you.  He should be banned for it.  For days he has been on a roll trying to convince us that we are all a bunch of intolerant bigots because we don't accept homosexuality as the norm.  IMO-that runs counter to the goals of this site.

It was just because it was a horrible business that I (and many other people) wouldn't touch with a 50 foot pole. GM is even worse. They are just a money burning machine now.

services to people in scouts? Someone call the lawyers!

BOA as a BUSINESS shouldn't (and of course doesn't) restrict their services to make a political point but where they send DONATIONS is a separate matter and entirely up to them.  

I guess they wouldn't know and they would have a hard time holding it against you. I'm pretty sure the BSA doesn't hire private detectives to follow their scoutmasters around and see what kind of bars they go to.

Who would let a straight man take charge of Girl Scouts?

5.

call a lawyer for that?

You are being onery this morning.  ;P

Leaving the specifics of the above debate aside, since it seems fruitless, I have a question: would you be ok with gay scout leaders for children under 12?

If not, why not?

It is still aberrant behavior in the animal community. The normal behavior is for males and females of the same (or extremely close) species to mate. Just because other cases exist doesn't make it any less aberrant. It is still not the norm. It's not even close.

on the BSA.

The letter confirms that, if the BSA or the local Council changes its policies, they will start receiving checks again.  So in effect they are trying to use their financial clout to get the BSA to come around.

The BofA has every right to with hold the funds, if they don't believe the BSA is in line with charities they choose to donate to-but they most certainly are using the power they have to get the BSA, or at least that local council, to change their policy with regard to homosexual scoutmasters.

It is also not normal for one species of mammal to drink another's milk.

The BSA is a quasi religious group themselves.

That's like saying the military should ban Catholics, because they don't allow non Catholics to take communion.

The reality is that the BSA is pretty open to a variety of religious belief, but part of their core values are a belief in a higher power of some sort, and athiests don't fit that bill.  Makes me wonder why an atheist would want to be involved anyway.

Lord Almighty, I was wondering when this was finally going to be said.

There is a huge difference between pre-pubescent child molestation and post-pubescent child molestation. The people who molest post-pubescent victims are typically completely different people than those who molest pre-pubescent victims. I don't think there is much overlap there at all. When you are talking about post-pubescent victims, the vast majority of offenders have a strong preference for one sex or the other. With pre-pubescent victims, I think there isn't much interest in the sex of the victim (after all, the physical differences aren't all that great anyway at that point).

not be comfortable with that.  Nor would I be comfortable with one teaching my child at school.

Scoutmasters, teachers, etc...play a big part as role models to young children.  I don't want my child to be influenced by someone that is leading a lifestyle that flies in the face of the values I am trying to teach them.

by being irritated by the "Day of Truth" and having him end up defending me. So, my bad then.

I do understand the Bank of America thinking that this runs counter to their charter. However, the idea that no child of any gender will be led by a scoutmaster attracted to that gender is not discrimination.

Here you go:

Straight men and lesbians can teach Boy Scouts.

Gay men and straight women can teach Girl Scouts.

Lovely? Now, I'm sure the Boy Scouts would probably disallow because of "moral concerns". However, even then, you can still make a case that you want same gender to teach same gender for logical reasons.

Got it? Something that is done for "discriminatory" reasons can still make perfect sense for other ones.

Well my wife is on a road trip, so there's no one here to moderate my usual mean streak =)

But seriously, if BoA as a business denied service to someone based on them being in the scouts, or the military, yeah I'd call the lawyers. Thankfully, they don't.

I just don't see the inconsistency here; their business practices and their charitable donations ought to be separate.

Any credible scholar who studies human sexual behavior will tell you that pedophilia is not classifiable in terms of heterosexual or homosexual. Gender is not the primary motivation for pedophiles. That's why a man can enjoy sex with his wife, never have sex with an adult male, and still molest young boys. It's common. This is not because he's bisexual or anything; he's a pedophile and should be classified as such. That's completely different from a normal gay male, who is only sexually attracted to adult men.

that it's not only the gay thing, but just a general disdain for anything that would instill traditional, conservative Republican values in children.

To assume that normal human behavior is exactly the same as normal animal behavior. We don't kill other animals with our bare hands and eat them raw either.  That doesn't make it aberrant behavior for humans to buy prekilled food at the grocery store and cook it on the stove. We aren't coyotes.

Besides, an animal certainly will drink another animals milk if it is made available. Leave a saucer of milk out sometime and see what happens to it. I'll give you a clue.. it wasn't a calf that wandered by and drank it.

While post-pubescent pedophiles are almost always a different group than pre-pubescent pedophiles, they are both still pedophiles. Pedophiles, by definition, are not primarily motivated by gender, but by the age of their victim. They might have preferences, but those preferences probably extend along multiple lines. In other words, you might see a trend, but it's not due to sexual orientation. Rather, it's due to the nature of the pedophile.

The question is: does the population of gay males contain a larger proportion of people likely to sexually assault young boys than the population of straight males? I don't think so, simply because pedophilia defies our conventional explanations of sexual preference.

Furthermore, the debate is a bit pointless, since BSA does generally do a good job of protecting the safety of children. So, you could allow a gay man to lead his son's scout troop while still screening out possible abusers.

That doesn't make it aberrant behavior for humans to buy prekilled food at the grocery store and cook it on the stove. We aren't coyotes.

and you missed it.   Among others it's the homosexual "community" that has gone public and out of the bedroom.   Nay, out of the proverbial closet, ot perhaps the real closet.

    Speaking for myself, whatever I may feel personally about the practice, I have no interest in bedrooms wherein homosexuals engage in intimacies. This for a good reason, it's PRIVATE.

     The changing of marriage, job discrimination, and the ugly pressure on the BSA, you see is NOT private! Can you grasp the difference?

      I take it you agree with the B of A pressure as well as the United Fund witholding grants and other such measures.

      By a modest extension I also take it that you have no problem with the Church problem and don't regard it as a scandal.  I will withold further comment.

So long as he kept it to himself and didn't fill the kids in on his lifestyle.

isn't the only onery one this morning.  :)

But lots of people think that two gay people walking down the street holding hands are "flouting" their homosexuality.  Then again a lot of people view homosexuality as a political issue and not a sexual one.  This is why they believe in the Vast Left Wing Gay Conspiracy.

I understand the BSoA's position.  I don't really agree with them but I don't respect their right to stick to their principles.

But the reality is that their position is an unpopular one with the American people, taken as a whole.  While Red State posters can talk about boycotts  of B

We are talking about teenagers. Huge difference. Completely different set of offenders. Anything you can say about the 8 year old victimizers doesn't apply to the 14 year old victimizers and vice versa.

From a strictly biologically point of view, it is completely normal for a gay or straight man to be attracted to 14 or 15 year olds. They are biologically sexually mature. It is only social mores (for most people) and the law (for some) that interferes with this. That is why the comparisons to a male scout leader in the girl scouts are so apt.

accidental post hit.

To continue.  While Red State posters can talk about boycotts the majority of Americans won't bycott BoA.

The BSoA is sticking to their beliefs and I think that is worthy of respect.  But it comes at a price.  

The changing of marriage, job discrimination, and the ugly pressure on the BSA, you see is NOT private! Can you grasp the difference?

Marriage is a contract between two people.  The ultimate tie of a marriage is extremely private.  The legal context of a marriage is simply providing certain rights to married people in regards to each other.  You don't like the idea of gay people being given those rights.

You'll have to expand on what you mean by job discrimination. Are you suggesting that it should be ok to discriminate against gay people in the workplace?

Ugly pressure by the BoA?  So the BoA should simply continue to give the BSoA money even if they oppose their practices, either for political or economic reasons?

You display the typical reasoning that gay people that choose to make it public, in any way, that they are gay are making their choices public.  Is it so unreasonable for a gay person to simply want to not live their life in secrecy?

I agree with any private organization being entitled to determine who they will and will not give money to.   You think the Catholic Church should be obligated to give money to gay activist organizations?  

While I appreciate your convoluted logic for it value as humor, I think most would prefer that we just keep this simple:

Straight men can teach Boy Scouts.

Straight women can teach Girl Scouts.

That works great for me.

Black isn't white and night isn't day. However, the obvious can not be denied. Don't try it.

That's the beauty of freedom, and certainly a point I agree with.

Just making an observation.  :)

Boys at the pedophilia age are going to be in Cub Scouts, where boys don't even go on trips without their parents present (and I am pretty sure this is a Cub Scout rule, not just a local council one).

I am always with my sons at their meetings and on their trips, and I am expected to be their specific chaperone on trips.

There just aren't too many opportunities for a pedophile to access a child under this format.  Not impossible, but it would be extremely difficult.

Boy Scouts is different.  And you don't head to boy Scouts until you are around puberty (12ish), so the majority of boy scouts are going to be in puberty or post puberty while in Boy Scouts.

And once again while I don't think the majority of homosexual men would even dream of hurting or having sex with one of the boys in their charge, what method are the Scouts going to use to filter these out-they can't.  There is good reason to not let a single man be a girl scout leader, and those reasons very well may apply to why a homosexual man shouldn't be a boy scout leader.

I think the scouts could probably set policy so that boys were protected, but I think to dismiss the issue as irrelevant is also burying your head in the sand.

One hundred and fifty four (so far) other posters seem to think this decision was primarily based on sexual orientation.

Thanks for your unique, maverick interpretation.

Has there been any polling on the BSA allowing gay men to become scout leaders in the boy scouts? I wouldn't assume you would get a majority yes response on that.

Of course most Americans won't boycott, but the same goes for any boycott. A boycott doesn't have to cause a business to lose the majority of its business to be successful. If that was the case, no boycott in history would've been successful.

I'm not a big fan of organized boycotts anyway, but I certainly do redirect my business for all sorts of reasons, and this kind of thing does factor into it. One reason I don't like to shop at Target is that they kicked the Salvation Army off their sidewalks during Christmas season. It does affect my purchases. I don't do any Christmas shopping there any more.

does not occur anywhere in the original text of the Bible (as opposed to modernist translations), and the condemnation of Sodom and Gommorah had nothing to do with homosexuality. The latter is one of the "myths of Scripture" that derive from later traditions (like the Firbidden Fruit being an apple and Mary Magdalen being a prostitute) that have no support in Scripture itself.

there are however women who are boy scout leaders. A friend of my step-mother's is one such. Why is it we (myself included) are unconcerned about the gender mixing in that set-up?

so must you make yours.

maybe it is time for hubby to stand up to the powers that be and refuse to use the gov't card and use our private one instead.

Yes, it is. No one is coercing any one here. They are just chosing the kinds of people and organizations with whom they wish to associate freely.

wouldn't have sex with a pubescent boy...oh wait...unless she's a teacher!

Has there been any polling on the BSA allowing gay men to become scout leaders in the boy scouts? I wouldn't assume you would get a majority yes response on that

It's not about the specific issue of the BSoA and scout leaders.  It's about the general principle of discrimination, which is viewed very negatively in this country.

The BoA most likely made this decision on economic grounds fearing that by supporting the BSoA they would be implicitly endorsing a anti-gay discrimination which could be used against them down the road by an disgruntled gay ex-employee in his or her lawsuit against BoA.

have a concern over women being Boy

scout leaders.  He does not like it all.  Unfortunately, so many men are failing in their roles as dads, that now moms have to pick up the slack.  Even in boy scouts.

Young boys need organized activities and male role models.  When military families send their male father figures off to war, where can the family turn for a good male role model?  And, what if your whole community (e.g., the families assigned to a deployed division or air wing) loses most of its male role models en masse?  In such circumstances, an organization like the Boy Scouts is irreplacable.  

Ya know, when the Pentagon's decision on deemphasizing its ties with the Boy Scouts first was announced, initially I wasn't peeved at the ACLU.  After all, they had started the action back in the late 90s, well before 9/11.  The military community wasn't in nearly as much stress then.  So, I waited for the ACLU, after its "victory" over the Pentagon, to come forward and say something like this:

We stand by our belief that the Boy Scouts should be kept at a distance by the DOD, because of its stated beliefs and policies.  HOWEVER, we in the ACLU also recognize the stress our military communities are under, as a result of the Global War On Terror.  As we don't want to place any more burdens on our military families, we urge the Pentagon to delay, for the time being, implementation of this policy.  Our military families need every support structure they can tap into now.  The ACLU is willing to put aside, for now, its disagreement with the Boy Scouts because, while we disagree with Scouting policy, we recognize the value of Scouting.

If the ACLU put out such a statement, they did it very quietly.  So, I'm presuming they didn't.

Ergo, fie on the ACLU!

Women are much, much less likely to be sex offenders. In VT and NH (probably typical of the rest of the country) the perpetrators of sex crimes against minors are well over 90% male.

. . . that it the BSA's policy on homosexuals that they object to?

I'm just curious because the letter basically recited their nondiscrimination policy without putting any emphasis on one criteria or another and could just as easily mean they cannot fund an organization that discriminates on the basis of say, religion which the BSA also does.

And why you referenced my comment.

The USAF has REQUIRED all crew members to obtain and use the BOA credit card.  He did not have a choice in the matter.

For my husband to refuse it will be a big deal.  

that by legally "extorting" the boyscouts, to force them into making a change in their organizational values, is discriminatory in and of itself.

---

Isn't this precisely the argument that liberal law schools used in their efforts to keep military recruiters off campus?

Judge the merit of it for yourself.

now, doesn't it?

"The BoA most likely made this decision on economic grounds fearing that by supporting the BSoA they would be implicitly endorsing a anti-gay discrimination which could be used against them down the road by an disgruntled gay ex-employee in his or her lawsuit against BoA."

How in th hell did we, as a nation, get to this point?  

It's disgusting.

On how specific (or nonspecific) you want to make the question. The vast majority of people are against discrimination when it isn't justified, yes. But many of these same people think there is justification for BSA's discriminatory policy. Just like they think there is justification in the military's policy or the Catholic church's policy. That factor cannot be ignored. It is central to their approval (or disapproval) of the policy.

I don't buy the lawsuit argument. I'm sure it is an attempt to woo homosexual business, which is fine. They are a desirable market to go after in terms of income and spending, which is why you see so much advertising targeting the gay community now.

Has already been attempted. See #62

"For this reason God gave them up to vile passaions.  For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." -- Romans 1:26,27

Yep, the word homosexual is not present in that passage.  Therefore the biblical condemnation of homsexual acts is a myth just like the apple thing.

Look, there are lots of "traditions" of Christian belief that have no backing in scripture: the apple thing, the Magdalene thing, that the names of the three kings and their origins are Caspar of Tarsus, Melchior of Persia and Balthasar of Saba, or (for those Baptists out there) that dancin' and drinkin' are forbidden.  But the biblical condemnation of homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments is not one of them -- as much as some folks might wish it were.  Your choice is to acknowledge it or ignore it -- but to deny it is present in the text is frankly counterfactual.

I've always found the "there are gay animals" argument dubious.

First of all 50 species is a very small sample. Considering the number of species of animal that exist.

For the most part, animals are not sexual beings. In that they mate only when a female is in heat and the  smell attracts males. There are a few exceptions, pygmy chimps seem to be truly sexual.

I know your thinking "My dog will hump anything". So will mine if you let him get away with it. But this is NOT sexual in any way. Dogs do this to establish there place in the pack hierarchy. If a dog 1 can hump dog 2,  dog 1 outranks dog 2. I've  seen bitches "hump" other dogs, cats, etc. I would really like to know how a bitch can get any sexual gratification for such an act.

And of course what's normal for one animal doesn't mean anything about whats normal for another.

Your question is manipulative in that it implies that if Christ said nothing specifically concerning an activity, a Christian cannot condemn it as sinfull. Nonsense. Quakers have a catechism where the answers are made up entirely of red-letter passages from the Gospels. Other, no less authentic varieties of Christianity give equal moral weight to the pastoral letters.

For Paul's thoughts on homosexuality see Romans 1:26-27.

people are greedy and can rationalize anything.  

example of "homesexuality" among animals is mice & rats. These animals will apparently "revert" to homosexual behavior when the food supply is dangerously low. As I recall the hypothesis is that this is a strategy for preventing offspring with no food supply to support them. From this it would appear that this is not homosexuality in the same sense as in humans.

I agree that framing of the question is important. But why should BoA get involved in the debate?  It doesn't serve their objectives.  

They are involved either way. The only way for them to stay completely uninvolved would be for them to have never given to the BSA in the first place. They clearly didn't see a problem with the policy back when they started.

If they wanted to extricate themselves from the relationship and stay as far removed from the controversy as possible, they would've simply discontinued the contributions and given a different reason (or no reason) for it, not issue an ultimatum to change their policy or else they will discontinue.

They are making a statement here. One ultimately intended to attract customers in the GLBT community.

of victims in the Priest abuse scandal were post pubescent males (I can't remember the stat and don't have time to hunt it up, as I am heading out on various errands, but will hunt it down later if needed).

I think it is idiotic to pretend as if there aren't sick homosexuals out there ready to victimize children.  The reality is that the vast majority of men-hetero or homosexual have no intention of harming anyone, but being careful with who leads a group of children and teens is important, when that is the main mission of the gruop.

When you say perpetrators, you really mean convicted offenders, don't you?

So any bias in the system where women are less likely to be accused, investigated, indicted, or convicted, will skew that number.

Its the bank of america's money and they can choose however to spend it, if they want to put a condition that the money only goes to organizations which in their mind don't discriminate they have the right to do so.

And we have the right to not like it and express our displeasure.

Re: For Paul's thoughts on homosexuality see Romans 1:26-27.

If you read the entire passage (or better yet the entire letter), not just wrench a proof text out of context, you will see that the opassage is talking about the apotstate Jews who adopted Greco-Roman fads and fashions (a major scandal in the Jewish community of that day), most notably idolatry. Their homosexual flings are mentioned as a conseqwuence of their apsotacy, not as the cause of it.

Re: Yep, the word homosexual is not present in that passage.  Therefore the biblical condemnation of homsexual acts is a myth just like the apple thing.

Um, that passage is not about Sodom and Gomorrah, which is what I was responding to (as my comment clearly indicates). As for the proof text you cite please read my comment upthread on that matter.

  The real point IS

 There is freedom enough in the USA.  Another Organization theoretically could be chartered with  the RULES & qualifications at "who-ever's" making.  Said organization can, in the FREE-MARKET of ideas, compete for membership and extol the organization's VALUES.  This can happen ANYTIME.

Dare I say this is a fact, not just an opinion?

I apologize if this sounds strident.  If the BSA does not suit you, you have every right to go make your own, you do not have any right to DESTROY what is.

   

It's logically defensible to say that you don't care what the Bible says about homosexuality, but it's simply untrue to say that it's silent.

That you can't find a particular word in a translation matters very little. Words represent ideas, and the idea is clearly there.  Ignore it at your peril.

i would prefer if you wouldn't sully this thread with evolutionary theory.

animals don't have "strategies" for survival.  

god programmed them to behave a certain way.

Why do you think most corporations have anti-discrimination polices that include sexual orientation?  Answer:  Money.

It's not because they are trying to push a political agenda just because of idealogy.  All BoA cares about is making money.  They have employees and customer who care about this stuff, and they don't want to offend anyone.

The reality is that most people who favor discriminating against gays aren't going to change their bank account anyway.  Besides which major banks in this country don't have such a non-discrimination policy?  You'd probably have to switch to a local bank to find one, which doesn't make sense for people who travel a lot or who like  good online services.

The BSA are being punished by the gay rights movement nationwide because they will not provide homosexuals with young boys.

Please try to get a grip on your rhetoric.

...was a really great calculus teacher?  i think kids should go to school to learn reading, writing, rithmatic, etc.    

kids should learn values at home and in church. what if the teacher was muslim? atheist?  i personally wouldn't care.

i don't see whats so difficult about teaching your own kids the value system you hold.

Get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

A "survival strategy" is clearly an abstract; obviously they didn't sit down and devise it themselves.

I wonder who has a better understanding of the banking industry?  A major US bank or a bunch of bloggers?

They clearly think its in their best financial interest to have this anti-discrimination policy.  As do most corporations, including some that are associated with conservativism (Coors, comes to mind).

How many people do you think will actually (a) hear about this story and then (b) take the affirmative action of switching to another bank?  Apparently BoA has figured they have more to gain then to lose.

Is that the Bible says a LOT of things.

There are rules about eating shrimp (don't). There are rules about eating rabbits (don't). There are rules about working on Sundays (don't). There are rules about mixing milk and beef (don't). There are rules about wearing mixed fabrics (don't).

We all agree that these rules are pretty... well, let's be charitable. We all agree that we can quote Acts 11:1-10.

When it comes to homosexuality, however, the leniency that is given to engaging with one's spouse whilst she is visited by the muse disappears and we can start shouting LEVITICUS 20:13!!!!

In general, this makes me question whether that what God has said on the subject is the prime motivating factor behind the scripture quoting. It seems that a person could, in good faith, come to the conclusion that the Bible is merely a handy club with which to beat the opposition to then, once again, be put away when it comes time to throw on a polyester/cotten blend hawaiian shirt before throwing some cheeseburgers on the grill.

There are provisions for the many service members who are not allowed to even have a credit card due to bad credit.  Those cases are handled by giving the service member an advance before travel, and then squaring up with a travel claim afterwards.  I just got out of the Marine Corps and I know quite a few folks who don't have the card.  

if hubby has to fill up that C17 he drives it's gonna' put a nasty dent in petty cash :-)

I want his frequent flyer miles!

you are completely justified in dropping the BofA account and should do so. If you must maintain the account to avoid some harassment from the military hierarchy (a point I did not understand), keep it but don't use it. You (wife) still have the right to open a card in your name with your husband as the second cardholder, don't you? I'm not sure how they can require him to use it unless it is for AF expenses.

...but how does a debtor protest when Bank of <strike>America</strike&gt(I consider it a misnomer) Globalism buys his/her little "community bank" that has had a long-standing policy of abiding by a set of community standards that is decidedly counter to the homosexual-perversion-agenda?  Withhold payment on that debt?  I think not.  What if moving that debt to another institution would be too costly, impractical or impossible for some other reason?

In effect, Bank of <strike>America</strike&gt Globalism is powerful enough to force at least some to financially support the cause of moral decay who find it repugnant and immoral to do so.

If you interpet that passage in the way you are implying, you must also believe that all Christian men must be circumcised, must travel to Jerusalem to keep the annual festivals, and must offer sacrifices, right? Or do you arbitrarily choose which Laws must still be upheld based on a whim?

The military went to using the credit card for all travel expenses some years ago.  I think that brand might have changed, but it is now Bank of America.  Each individual must at least apply for the card, and approval for it is based on the individual service member's credit.  If they couldn't get a card on their own, they might have problems getting card through/for the military; I do think that the process, because it is for official military travel, opens up most people to at least limited approval.  There are those, however, who do not use the card for its intended purpose, and therefore they have their accounts closed and cards destroyed by the military.  (They still foot the bills they racked up though - not the taxpayer).  These people still need to travel, so they do it the old fashioned way with advance payments to their accounts (at least partial - everything else is squared away after the travel has completed.)  Having the card is a convenience because often the military demands last-minute travel; preparing advances for travel all of the time was costly and prone to accidents such as overpayment, underpayment, etc... I have had to pay for junior Marine's hotel rooms more than once because an advance payment wasn't processed properly.  Anyway, that is that - sorry to beat it like that.  On a side note, I wonder about the deal to give the contract to one company like that - it must be a massive overall bill every month!    

at least where it comes to offering sacrifices, circumcision and dietary laws-because the sacrificial system, circumcision and dietary laws were deemed no longer neccessary by the early church, because Jesus fulfilled the sacrifical aspect of the law (Hebrews explains this pretty good, I would quote verses, but the whole book pretty much covers it-Paul also covers these issues pretty well, and Acts covers the debates over whether gentile Christian converts had to first become Jewish, and they determined that they did not).  What Jesus didn't do, however, was end the moral principles the God created and established in the law.

We need to be very careful, when using the "it only matters if Jesus said" argument at times like this.  

Let that sink in.  It is no whim, though I would consider your argument to be such.

They will lose some business over this. The only question is if they will gain more than they lose. Corporations are not infallible, not even close. Do you think Target gained more customers than they lost on the Salvation Army debacle? I don't. Of course the effects are small enough to shrug off, but that doesn't make it a brilliant decision.

I checked all my credit cards after reading this to be sure none were from the Bank of America.  Had any of them been, I would have cancelled them today.  I would have written to BofA to express my reasons and my displeasure at their lack of support for an organization that is so patriotic, service-oriented and helpful to boys in our country.

other terms :-)

...yes, indeed, they've even managed to gain

civil rights recognition for a lethal disease.

--furious

   Is the dramatic "HUH' meant to express shock, or was my post to muddled and arcane for you?  A standard ploy, think up new material.  

     Your 1st para; marriage is a contract between man and woman, not just "two people", although I give you credit for choosing your words carefully. How unlike you.  The one thing you got right in the para, for that matter in your entire post, is that I don't like gay marriage.

     2nd para; "expand on job discrimination".  Let's leave aside the question of job protection because of sexual orientation, promotions ,hiring, the whole bit and baggage that goes with anti-discrimination laws [did you think of that ?]. Instead let's ask a simple question,  Just how can you be certain, beyond all doubt, that a person is homosexual?  Ah, your computer like mind has already answered that.  Right, the gay person  has to let you kmow he's gay, by word or deed or sandwich board draped from neck.  Then flyerhawk, he can sue you for discrimination on whatever grounds he can hang a hat on if he is so moved.  Pretty nice game that.

     3rd para; "should B of A continue to give money even if" etc.  My good Flyerhawk, the question isn't that of B of A giving money to people they don't like.  The question is should they cease giving money to an organization of notable background over the issue of sex.  A shade of not insignificant differnce and the whole idea behind the various posts.   Sorry you missed that also.

      4th para; re read your first sentence, of course they're making it public.  Then "is it so unreasonable for a gay man to simply want to not have to live their life in secrecy".  Yes.  One's sexual life is meant to be private, and if shared with anyone in conversation, certainly not to be used for self annointed victimization and then parleyed into political gain.  

     5th para; "you think the Catholic Church should be obligated to give money to gay activists".  Only if they build more bath houses.You know what Milton Berle used to say about silly questions don't you?

    At the moment that's a bad question insofar as the Church is paying out millions due to some icky situations on the very issue you want to transfer over to the BSA.  Bad timing on that one.  In any case if they were forced it wouldn't be charity would it.  Besides i touched upon that above and in my first post, which if you read it you weren't paying attention.

      I've got books to read and pizza to eat and a sinking feeling that dealing with you can go on for an eternity.  Remember, this centers on one thing only, who a person goes to bed with.  The non=homosexuals who take this up as a cause must really need causes to take up.

on these matters.  The answer is in Acts 15.  Christians are to abstain from illicit sex and from "eating meat sacrificed to idols", which is to say, both literally and figuratively, from doing things which give the appearance of our approval of polytheism.  The rest of the "rules" are covered by "love God, and love thy neighbor".

That is only a cursory treatment, and doesn't deal with the religious, cultural, and permanent categories of Laws that apply in various ways ranging from historical curiosity to binding edict, guidelines by which the Law of Love is revealed to be broken.  Suffice it to say that freedom from the Law is not freedom to insult the Law's Creator.

It is a requirement as far as I know that the employee must use his/her BoA card when traveling. The employee has no choice.  Thus, you cannot refuse to use the BoA card when performing official travel.  I do not like to use it because I have always refused to use NCNB the parent company of BoA.  We used to call NCNB..No Coloreds No Blacks...and there claim of being the best bank in the neighborhood, we just said they wanted to be the best bank in South Africa.  That's where they made their money, they were one of the few US banks to deal with the Apartheid regime in South Africa.  Yep, No Coloreds No Blacks..... and now we are forced to use them.  Yep...they've come a long way from supporting Apartheid to supporting the ACLU..

required when the military member travels on official duty.  And it is required that they note on their travel voucher how much is to be paid to the card and it gets paid automatically out of the member's per diem.  It is a very lucrative contract for BoA.  The government pays all cash advance and ATM fees, regardless of how ridiculous.

And no, we do not get frequent flyer miles.  And if we did, we are supposed to turn them in to the military.

That BoA has this contract and then slaps an organization like the Boy Scouts in the face just infuriates me.  The Boy Scouts are an important part of life for the boy/young man of a military dad.  They are a vital part of our community and that is why you saw such a backlash against the Pentagon caving to the demands of the ACLU.

 

Thanks for your unique, maverick interpretation.

Thanks. It's stylish to be a maverick these days.

No one, including the original poster, has pointed to any objective fact saying that BoA placed more weight on the sexual orientation discrimination than on the religious discrimination. Calling me names doesn't bolster your case.

And might I add, that your track record here is of such silly left wing BS, I have no real reason to agree with your junk science.

Why not err on the side of caution? Since the "burden" in this case on Homosexuals is so small.

  Actually I know why, Its because of your hideous, overweening, dedication to left wing Ideology.

but left wingers learned all the wrong lessons from the Priest pedophilia scandal.

What if moving that debt to another institution would be too costly, impractical or impossible for some other reason?

TS.  Too bad.  That's the free market answer.  If it's important to you that companies you do business with support your pet political causes, you better start doing research on every one of your purchases.  You're advocating for regulation of the banking market otherwise.

BSA discriminates against gays; BoA thinks that policy wrong; BoA withheld funding.

So what?  That's the market of ideas at work, gentlemen.  Certainly BoA isn't obligated to fund BSA, right?

My good Flyerhawk, the question isn't that of B of A giving money to people they don't like.  The question is should they cease giving money to an organization of notable background over the issue of sex.

Indeed.  Your presupposition, that discrimination against gays is insignificant, is both incorrect and irrelevant (irrelevant in that you're not the boss of Bank of America.  Why whine about how they use their own money?)

The post was clear: the BoA is morally obligated to support the scouts.  Unless you're a godless relativist, and think morality is simply about expressing preferences, the language of morality is the language of obligation.  "X is wrong" means "You are obligated not to do X."

The post was clear: the BoA is morally obligated to support the scouts.

Since the post was "clear" on this point, perhaps you could point to some language that says or even implies this.

Unless you're a godless relativist, and think morality is simply about expressing preferences, the language of morality is the language of obligation.

Riiiight... we're scrupulously ignoring the existence of any morally neutral choices, right? So tell me, when I get up tomorrow, is it "right" for me to wear the red tie? Or the blue? Which one am I obligated to do?

Again, since I missed where the poster said anything like, "BoA is morally obligated to give to the BSA," this discussion, while interesting, is irrelevant.

BSA discriminates against gays; BoA thinks that policy wrong; BoA withheld funding.

INSERT: Boddington criticizes BoA.

So what?  That's the market of ideas at work, gentlemen.

It's enough to make a person wonder how we got 200+ comments along the lines of yours, seemingly confused that Boddington was advocating government intervention here, or something.

the day after the boycott was declared with no other market attribution, and dealers are complaining of the boycott affecting sales volume. All this at a time when Ford can least afford it.

If, on the other hand, you think I was claiming that the boycott is the source of Ford's already depressed market, I agree with an earlier post that you should work on reading comprehension. The point was that they are magnifying already existing problems.

And if you think that consumers are impotent with their spending dollars, you are in denial. Consumers have bent the ear and changed policy of several major Corp's over the past 24 months (Wal-Mart, Disney/ABC, The Southland Corporation, S. C. Johnson, Federated Department Stores, Inc. and Lowe's Home Improvement, to name a few).

arguments in this thread are like the zombies in "Night of the Living Dead". You can't reason with them since they can't think. It doesn't matter how many times you kill them, they just keep coming back up. By the middle of the movie they all start looking the same, and you're fighting to stay awake while you look for the remote control.

which vaguely resemble humans who haven't got the knack of acting quite human, these arguments are trying to sound like conservative arguments, they're just missing that one ingredient that makes them actually conservative. Like... oh, I dunno... making sense.

So let's confine the discussion to just the moral principles in the Old Testament. Slavery OK with you, or do you recognize that moral principles can evolve with time? The moral principles of the Old Testament may have been the "norm" back when they were written, but societies change, and what was acceptable back then just isn't acceptable today. That includes slavery and the subjugation of women, undeniably. Why can't it also include homophobia?

As far as I am concerned, the best moral compass, transcending any religion, is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Following that golden rule leaves no place for discrimination against someone based on something so private and harmless as sexual orientation.

"Following that golden rule leaves no place for discrimination against someone based on something so private and harmless as sexual orientation."

Yes, because we know that nothing negative can come out of deviant sexual behavior.  Right?

they've been looking for but can't seem to reproduce. So they send in the liberal trolls to steal the formula, but find they can't break the code.

No wonder liberals are all so frustrated and angry. It's like Thomas Edison without the discovery, a perpetual hell of trying the same old tired experiment...

Negative consequences can arise from just about anything, including "non-deviant" sexual behavior. I don't really see what your comment adds to the discussion. ???

"I think this policy and what this policy represents is an attempt to cause a serious erosion of personal freedoms, personal rights to associate, the right of parents to know that the Boy Scouts of America does everything it possible can to be as inclusive as it can be and still carry forward the traditional and applaudable character building programs of Scouting and to see to the safety of every child whose safety is entrusted to the Boy Scouts of America."

So the Boy Scouts are entitled to the grant?

Look, the Boy Scouts are entitled to accept whomever they choose.  The Bank is entitled to give money to whomever they chose.  If the Bank doesn't want to give money to the Boy Scouts because they discriminate against gays, that's free speech and free assocation in action, not "an attempt to cause a serious erosion of personal freedoms[.]"

Some of y'all just don't get it.

It's enough to make a person wonder how we got 200+ comments along the lines of yours, seemingly confused that Boddington was advocating government intervention here, or something.

But isn't that very much what the BSA is suggesting?  How else to read this line:

"I think this policy and what this policy represents is an attempt to cause a serious erosion of personal freedoms, personal rights to associate, the right of parents to know that the Boy Scouts of America does everything it possible can to be as inclusive as it can be and still carry forward the traditional and applaudable character building programs of Scouting and to see to the safety of every child whose safety is entrusted to the Boy Scouts of America."

in a free country you get to whine as much as you want, you've probably whined a little yourself once or twice.  B of A has the freedom to do what they want, that was never questioned in case you didn't notice, and I get to whine.  So do you, ain't it wonderful!

does nothing to bolster yours. The adjectives unique and maverick refer to your interpretation, not you. There was no name calling in my post.

While I grant you that nothing in the letter indicates that the BoA placed more weight on the discrimination against GLTB's than on the discrimination against atheists, for anyone to believe that the atheist's lobby is forcing this action is simply absurd.  My point was that (now over 200) many posters had read the op and the attached letters and reached one conclusion. You (and now one other poster) reached a different, although supportable conclusion.

(as used in Scripture) also means "completed". In other words, the Law is over and done. And that in fact has been the orthodox (small "o") position of the Christian Church since ancient times when "Judaizing" was condmened as a heresy.

any comment on this thraed insulting God.

If you have a daughter or imagine you have one, would you let her be a Girl Scout? They have no ban on homosexuality.

We are talking moral principles, not what was actually there.

Let's also consider context, because the Old Testament and New Testament both teach the value of human life.  Slaves in the OT had many rights that slaves elsewhere did not have.  Owners did not have the right to kill slaves, and they also were obligated to set them free during the year of jubilee (although the Israelites being the rebellious folks they were never bothered to follow through on this).

As I already said-you have to be careful not to take what is practice/punishment and project that forward, but the moral principles that are taught.  

Now on to your golden rule-which is only part of the equation-you are misquoting Jesus, when he brought up the do unto others as you would have them do unto you, he also pointed out the "love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind" he stated that this was the greatest commandment, then quoted what we call the golden rule, then went on to say that all of the law and prophets hang on those two commandments (for the record, when Jesus refers to the Law and the Prophets, he means what Christians commonly refer to as the Old Testament).

And while I agree that we shouldn't discriminate legally against people, a body that operates on moral principles and believes homosexual behavior to be an immoral act, they have every right to set their standards accordingly.

Also, sexual behavior outside the bounds set by God isn't harmless for anyone.

Organizations that depend on charity exixt on charity. I think an uncomplicated point and a difference that sets them apart from so called private advocacy groups that receive part, or most, of their money from government sources.  You might be able to come up with a few names of the latter.

       Given that fact, erosion in the first type of organization and their capacity to function follows from a decrease in contributions, again I think uncomplicated.

        To proceed; you will note, or should have, that Mr Smith is listing a series of what he calls serious erosions, including " the right of parents to know that the BSA does everything it possibly can to be as inclusive-------carry forward the traditional and applaudable character" etc.

       Now I can't and won't try to convince you otherwise but I doubt very much that old retrograde Smith is suggesting a Constitutional right there.  If so maybe an amendment to the constitution along the lines of,"The rights of parents to know that the BSA does everything-----etc,shall not be abridged", might be tacked onto that hallowed document that both conservatives and liberals love with equal fervor, except for liberals it's a living document.

      No I don't think so Von.  The rights mentioned are pracriced thru, as noted, charity, and so these particular rights would erode thru lack of charity, hopefully finding other venues and opportunities.  Therefore they are to be distinguished from established rights commonly understood.

      With eagle eye but apparently faulty memory you may have noticed that the gay hating and infamous Smith said this in a letter, not in an opening statement before a court of law.  For what it's worth.

      I note your assertion that the BSA discriminates against gays.  Not quite.  What the BSA discriminates against is sex, there being all kinds of places, times, types,acts, even perversions, where that pastime may find outlets.  But not in the Boy Scouts, although possibly and probably in our tax enforced public schools.  Which last should be enough to satisfy you.

       In a word, you will not find the BSA handing out condoms, perhaps a pity but there you are.

       Discrimination you see is the verbal tool or weapon used against the BSA for not doing what the current zeitgeist demands of it, as it demanded of the St Patricks Day parade, and failed, and as it demands of our public schools,where it has succeeded. You can't win them all Von but you've won enough if not too much.

       The right of B of A to contibute as it wishes not being an issue we can skip that.

       I am interested in the seeming contradiction between the Catholic Church scandal and the zeal with which some desire homosexual scoutmasters to tuck little Jimmy into his sleeping bag at night.  Also, alternatives always being open to everybody, why has there not been a Gay Scouts of America formed.  Such an organization would give liberals a chance to express their tolerance and at the same time broaden little Jimmy's perspectives, help the little devil break down the walls of prejudice and all that.  Regards to the the crowd at ObWi!

but they aren't defined as such by the psyciatric community.

A pedophile is a person who is attracted to pre pubescent children-that is the psyciatric definition, although they do have another term for those who are attracted to post pubescent children, but this isn't defined as being neccessarily abnormal in the sense that pedophilia is considered abnormal by the p-docs out there.  Our social morays and legal system are what mostly view sex with post pubescents as abnormal, and even the social morays start to wear thin, if the child is an older teen or the perpetrator isn't all that far into adulthood.

so I don't know if you'll see this or not. I found your response and realized I had levied it at the wrong person. At the time I glanced at your sig and mistook you for a drive-by troll that had come out swinging earlier. It was well intentioned wit aimed poorly. My bad, please accept my (embarrassed) apology.

I'm just the resident ornery contrarian, and some might call me a troll, to be sure. But here I was interceding on behalf of flyerhawk; I thought your quip, however funny, was a bit too personally aimed.

Mentioning any legal action

So is congress with one's wife whilst she is being visited by her sickness "illicit sex"?

Because Leviticus 20:18 pretty much comes out and says that if this happens "both of them shall be cut off from among their people". This particular phrasing has been interpreted to mean "give them the death penalty" in other parts of the Bible.

I, personally, don't see this particular act as that big of a deal.

I'd like to know the difference between my not seeing this act as that big of a deal and a theoretical person not seeing homosexuality (between two consenting partners, of course) as that big a deal.

It still seems to me that a person could, in good faith, see this as picking and choosing which laws are important based not upon one's belief in Scripture's Authority but based upon one's own personal belief system and merely finding verses that back that up.

The bible also forbids masurbation as outside the bounds - do you think the Boy Scouts should purge the masurbators?

I am the author of the letter.  Agreed, the letter from BoA didn't state whether the BoA foundation had a problem with the exclusion based upon a belief in God or sexual orientation.  From what I learned, it was based on both, but primarily from a change in the BoA policy regarding sexual preference.  Under either reason, I find their action to be reprehensible for the reason that they do not state this policy on their foundation website and have not made it public.  Instead, they chose to quietly exclude the BSA one council at a time rather than stand up and publicly make their stand and take the heat head on.  Furthermore, the BoA's employee whose name is on the letter had no idea of this policy or that BoA had placed his signature on the letter.

The BoA is free to chose and we should all be free to know what that policy is so that we can all chose whether to do business with them.  FYI, I don't do business with any business that I know discrminates against the BSA.  

masturbation and masturbators - isn't that fun to say?

punishments have changed through the ages - I'll agree. I am also with you 100% on the private organization paragraph.

So, let's stick to moral lessons in the Bible - how do you reconcile these - without of course changing intrepretation, which can done with the verses on homosexuality. There's so many - let's see...

Genesis 19:30-38 Incest is good.

Deuteronomy 22:5 Women shouldn't wear pants.

Corinthians 14:34-35 Women should keep quiet.

Lev. 11:6-8 The NFL is in big trouble.

Exodus 21:7 Sell your daughter into slavery.

That should keep you busy for awhile...

As far as working to change the BSA, I am a member of an organization that lobbies private companies and the United Way to stop funding. We also work with BSA councils that are little more liberal and work to strengthen their hand in the national organization. So, someone suggested that giving privately to the BSA is a good idea, I agree, but if you want them to continue their anti-gay stance, you should probably check with who's taking the money. This policy is not appreciated by all members.

 This can be found here, and states in part (emphasis mine):

Ineligible categories for funding:

* Organizations that deny service to a potential client or beneficiary on the basis of race, religion, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, national origin, ancestry, citizenship, veteran or disability status

I find their action to be reprehensible for the reason that they do not state this policy on their foundation website and have not made it public.

 Because they do state this policy on their foundation website and have made it public, do you no longer consider their action to be reprehensible, or are there other issues you have with the way BofA is operating their charitable giving efforts?

Instead of hitting each other in the forehead with our bibles (fun though that might be)why not refuse to do business with Bank of America?  They want to speak out against the Boy Scouts with their pocketbooks.  

We should respond by withdrawing our funds from their coffers.  I will never do business with Bank of America again.

That letter will be remembered as the day BoA decided to alienate the majority of Americans who consider Christian values to be a good thing to teach our children.

What's the origin of the term 'moby?'  I think that I've only ever seen it on this site.  Is it an acronymn for something?  Just curious.

-exits

but is it relevant? I mean, it may be marginally less wicked to force one's sexual attentions (assuming one is an adult of course) on a 15 year old than it is on a nine year old, but both are pretty despicable acts and I always find the hair splitting on this topic a bit odd.

Moby, (this really cool guy), advocated that liberals go on conservative sites and pretend to be conservatives while spewing stupid, vile stuff.

Because the perpetrators are completely different people, with completely different motivations. You cannot apply anything you know about victimizers of 8 year olds to those of 15 year olds. Sex of the victim may not matter much to those who prey on 8 year olds, but it matters a whole heck of a lot to those who prey on 15 year olds.

So, yes, it would be a whole lot more dangerous to have straight men leading girl scout troops and gay men leading boy scout troops than it would be to have straight men leading boy scout troops and gay men leading girl scout troops.

Or, perhaps like most corporations, they are trying to appeal to the broadest possible customer base.  The greater part of America believe that discrimination against minorities is unacceptable, while only a small fraction of the opposing number believe that homosexuality is such an abomination that thay're willing to go to the trouble of closing their accounts and restructuring their debts to make a point.

I think the BSA is a good organization, but if it continues to stress its blanket discrimination against homosexuals, the private sector is within its rights to deny further support.  Diversity sells, people.  The ACLU, while it probably applauds BoA's action, had nothing to do with this: it's a response to the buying power of an overwhelmingly tolerant American public.

(Or, put simply, both the Scouts and the BofA can be right.)

Seriously.  They even used to talk about it.  I remember in highschool I would cut class and go to the school library (class was boring, since I had read the entire textbook in the first month of school).  

Our library had a whole section of feminist literature from the seventies.  Curious, I started reading some of them and discovered the most alarming hendonist lunacy.  They  would seriously discuss the destruction of the family.  They argued that the only purpose of family was to preserve a corrupt patriarchal white male-dominated society by oppressing women, homosexuals, and minorities.  They actually argued that families are bad for women. "Children are the way men control women."

They would then go on to lay out a blueprint for destroying the family.  I remember that one of the main points was to seize control of the entertainment industry and "break the bonds" between children and parents by tempting children with depictions of sexual promoscuity.

I've never been a big believer in conspiracy theories, but I have decided that there is an actual conspiracy to undermine the family.  I don't think of it as a typical, organized and co-ordinated conspiracy.  Rather as a new form of conspiracy- a disorganized conspiracy.

Essentially, I think a bunch of radical hendonist college stundents in the sixties would hang out together and talk about how they would like the world to change ("get rid of all the ingorace man- free love!") and discuss ways of promoting their subversive world view.  They then graduated and have, in piecemeal fashion, without much co-ordination, implemented many of the things they had talked about doing.  These radicals became powerful in only a few areas: Academia, Hollywood, Lawyers, Journalism, and Politics; but managed to bootstrap themselves into powerful positions (particularly the lawyers- who became judges as soon as possible).  They had formed these informal networks of friends that caused them to be sympathetic to each others causes, and they tend to reinforce each other.

Academia performs studies and argue for policies that will undermine traditional values.  Then the call their old college buddy who works over at Newsweek and a big story is published about it.  (For example, the gospel of Judas, which really has been known of for centuries- I mean, I'd heard about it, and I'm just an amatuer historian.)  Buzz builds, and then a big movie comes out (like the DaVinci Code) further popularizing the idea.  Society starts to absorb these ideas.

Or it might progress a different way.  Maybe a lawsuit starts it.  A crusading politican.  Who knows how many things have started with a movie- think about it:

Holloywood produces a movie about a prostitute who becomes a pretty elegant woman.  Well then, maybe prostitution isn't really so bad.

Or what about Philipehia Story- see, gays are people too.  If you dare to believe that homosexuality is a sin and immoral, then you're all bigots and bad rich people who want Tom Hanks to die a horrible death without friends.

Just look at the list for Best picture at the last Oscars.

It even comes out in small things.  Like romantic comedies such as "Got Mail" and "Sleepless in Seattle".  In both movies the protagonists are having sex with someone else while working out thier atraction to each other- these other people are treated as merely obstacles to true love, and the audience is manipulated into cheering against them. (And the guys being cheated on aren't even upset- yeah right!) You think that doesn't send a message?  Free love indeed.  Not to mention that nobody- and I mean nobody feels a need to wait for marriage before sex anymore.  I mean, I know a lot of people feel that way now- but they didn't in the seventies, and even today there is a large segment of the population that still believes in chastity.  Why is it that they are never depicted?

These people have an agenda- and they push it irregarless of the financal aspects.  We have to face it- their agenda is anti-family, anti-chastity, and anti-selfdiscipline.

With regard to the argument that BoA must have been more concerned with sexual orientation discrimination than with religious discrimination because gays have better lobbyists than atheists, there is no evidence in the original post that anyone other than the BSA lobbied BoA. Anybody who is involved with charitable giving is surely aware that BSA discriminates on the basis of religion. There have been countless articles on that subject and at least two court cases. Gays are the ones who brought the issue of religious discrimination by the BSA into public view. But now that everyone knows it, they don't have to be reminded of the issue by lobbyists.

Because the original post did not cite any reporting but merely referred to two written letters, then the original post was reporting as much as it was the expression of opinion. The reporting drew a conclusion with no factual support.

And thank you for clarifying that you are not calling me names. With questions about my reading comprehension and words like "absurd," I was beginning to wonder. It should be possible to debate without belittling your opponent or your opponent's ideas.

...a lot of people think of homosexuality as "aberrant," at least when it come to "normal" human behavior.  They grossly underestimate the number of homosexuals among the human population.  The other reason is that they define "normal" behavior as "common" behavior.

I would guess you've been around a lot more gays than you think.  You are probably confusing the subset of people with overtly gay behavior or appearance (at least from your perspective) with the larger population of all gays.  I think this is pretty common, and comes in part from the fact that gays who are easily identifiable don't have much choice but to come out, while the many who aren't easily identifiable get to stay in if they want to.  And many people tend to base their beliefs about gays on what they know and observe in those who have come out.

Even if you accept that there is such a think as "normal" human behavior, there is a lot of "normal" human behavior that I find deplorable, and a lot of "aberrant" behavior that is admirable.  I guess I'd like to see the human race stop patting itself on the back by defining what it usually does as acceptable and what it usually doesn't do as unacceptable.

No, I consider it reasonable to expect, if I originally chose to do business with a company specifically because it advertised that it shared my values,  that those values at the very least not be impugned by whatever entity purchases my account. BOA buys financial companies all the time.  It often takes over companies with deep community roots.  It then goes out of its way to do harm to the values treasured by at least some of those communities and it does so on behalf of what is nothing more than a whiny, miniscule, depraved and self-appointed chimera of a minority.

If BOA is selectively excluding the Boy Scouts, but selectively including Gay Men's Chorus of Boston (which it is), then, yes, there should be some regulation that would force BOA to provide legitimate and reasonable alternatives to those who have incurred the debt it acquires in the process of its expansion.  There is no legitimate argument against making activist companies like BOA avail account-holders that are part of an acquisition the same sort of portability in the area of debt as there is in the area of assets.

If BOA (or any other Globalist entity) wants to contribute to moral decay, then it seems only reasonable that no person be should be unwittingly forced to support (via supplying profit) the organizations or behaviors that BOA props up through distribution of that profit.  

Not so long ago, there were loons who were instrumental in forcing companies and governmental entities across America to divest themselves of interests in South Africa.  Today, it is the neocons and the left that says "TS" when it comes to having to reciprocate.  

In my book, the leaders of the gay movement are   marginally more reprehensible than any of the former leaders of former ruling regime in South Africa.  Now, I know you're going to have a hissy fit over this, but I ask you, were BOA supporting NAMBLA and entrapping its acquired customer base to do the same, would you have the same "free market trumps all" mentality?  Personally, I don't see one iota of difference between GLAAD, GLSEN and NAMBLA - they're branches of the same moral weed. And there are plenty of Americans who feel the same way.

Based on its idiotic double standard, BOA would be a better American citizen if it just got out of the charity business altogether.

No, I wasn't even quoting Jesus, so how could I be misquoting Jesus? I was quoting a common english translation of a concept that is common to almost all major religions. K'ung-fu-tzu said something similar long before Jesus did.

And while I agree that we shouldn't discriminate legally against people, a body that operates on moral principles and believes homosexual behavior to be an immoral act, they have every right to set their standards accordingly.

I pretty much agree with you here. I have not said that I think the Boy Scouts should change their policy to go against their moral principles. I think they should change their moral principles.

Also, sexual behavior outside the bounds set by God isn't harmless for anyone.

Is this mistyped? Do you honestly believe such a patently absurd statement, or am I misinterpreting your meaning? How do the actions of my neighbors in the privacy of their own home harm you? How does the marriage of two men in Massachusetts harm a Bangladeshi tinsmith? That is what you seem to be saying in the sentence above, which leads me to believe that you mistyped or I misinterpreted. ("...isn't harmless for anyone" being the equivalent of "is harmful to everyone.")

I'm from Athens, Georgia, not far from Atlanta. I've known hundreds actually as a musician and clubworker. I've taken cover money at shows where that was most of the audience. I didn't say "butch;" I said some really are shaped like men and it's obviously a natural developmental thing for those.

is a statistical term. With 350,000 to 400,000 gay people around metro Atlanta, it's not so abnormal.

I don't know many gay people? I doubt if many people here have known more than I have.

Genesis 19:30-38 Incest is good. Um this is the story of Lot and his daughters, where exactly did God tell Lot's daughters to do what they did, and where does the Bible express approval for the action?  As a matter of fact, Lot's daughters were mostly influenced by the immoral ways of Sodom and Gohmorah, not the righteousness of God and His ways.  Their decendants also turned into some of the more murderous and awful of the early Canaanite groups.  The Moabites were among those who threw their children into the fire to sacrifice them.  Not a good example of Godly approval of the action, and the reality is that the underlying moral principle learned from this story is that incest is bad, and may lead to generational immoral behaviors.

Deuteronomy 22:5 Women shouldn't wear pants. I think this goes more towards women dressing like women, and men dressing like men-not that pants in and of themselves are evil-especially give the fact that in the context of this writing, men didn't even wear pants.  The underlying principle here is simply, if you are a woman, be a woman, if a man be a man-also you could toss in dressing modestly and appropriate for the situation.

Corinthians 14:34-35 Women should keep quiet. This isn't really having anything to do with moral principles, this selection is in the context of worship, and mostly to maintain orderliness.  Read the context of the book-you learn that the Corinthian church had a lot of busybody women in it-women who were being disruptive.  What is the main princple to be learned here?  That everyone should maintain an orderly service, they shouldn't speak out of turn, and they should speak about those things they know with the leadership of the Holy Spirit.

Lev. 11:6-8 The NFL is in big trouble. Dietary laws were created in order to set God's people apart from those who were living in Canaan.  The book of Acts dealt quite readily (Peter's dream, when God sent him to Cornelius) with the issue of whether or not gentile converts had to become Jewish and follow Jewish laws, and they decided they did not, when God sent Peter a vision (I suggest you read chapters 10 and 11).  So esentially since God Himself sent the vision to Peter telling him it was okay to eat unclean animals and to eat with gentiles, the NFL probably need not worry.

Exodus 21:7 Sell your daughter into slavery.  Context-look at the beginning of the Chapter-considering the context of the times, this is more about granting slaves/indentured servants rights than making it okay.  Given the context of the time, it was not unusual for families to sell children into slavery-so here are the males rights-he serves 6 years, goes free in the 7th year, and does not owe any money to receive his freedom.  For the daughter-she doesn't get set free in 6 years (considering the context of the times-women didn't have opportunities outside of being wives and mothers).  The can't sell her, but must allow her to be redeemed (purchased back) by her family members.  If the master fails to take care of her and provide for her, then he has to set her free without payment.  Slaves had the right to appeal their cases to the Hebrew judges.  Slavery is not a fun system at all-but it was the system the ancient world was built on. Life in the ancient world pretty much sucked if you were a woman or weren't a wealthy man.  But given the context of the times, slaves had far more rights than in other cultures-but approval or dissaproval of slavery isn't so much the point, it is what is the underlying moral principle here-and that is that humans-even slaves are of value-they have to be cared for, and they had some rights and the ability to argue those rights before the judges.

Underlying moral principles-the moral points that we are to learn, or take from they various stories, laws, and commands are how we should, as Christians guide our lives.  

The BSA was not in any way, shape, or form built around precepts of Christian morality. The principles espoused by the Oath and the Law are fairly universal, and, as Daniel Carter Beard and Ernest Thompson Seton made clear in their writings, the American organization was from its inception ecumenical in character.

As to this:

Once a Scout, Eagle or otherwise, you are a Scout forever unless you turn your back on what you were taught there.

I didn't turn my back on the Scouts; the BSA turned its back on me, and on its own principles, when it opted to enshrine naked bigotry in its membership policy.

is still not good for you. The physiology of swine was not transformed by Peter's vision. In fact, Peter's vision did not have to do with food literally but with the gentile centurion who came to become a Christian.

This is in addition to Jesus saying "I have not come to change one jot or tittle of the law," which literally means dotting every "i" and crossing every "t."

Sometimes I'll eat pork chops or whatever if it's what's for dinner but I try not to eat bad pork products at all. However good a Christian you may be, eating cheap bacon every day for breakfast will kill you.

those attracted to prebuscent children, don't generally care about the gender of the children.

Victimizers of post pubescent children rarely victimize both genders-they will either exclusively victimize males or females.  Where and how this fits into homosexuality and heterosexuality hasn't been studied enough.  I think everyone agrees that the majority of homosexuals and heterosexuals wouldn't seek to victimize anyone-but those who want to victimize children or teens don't come with their intentions tatooed on their foreheads.

I am not convinced that the Boy Scouts are right in their exlusions, but I think when it comes to this aspect of the argument-the reasons you wouldn't send young single heterosexual men out with a group of teenage girls applies to homosexuals and a group of teenage boys.  Can they create policy around this to prevent it-possibly-but many organizations with policies still end up with kids being victimized (one need only to look at the recent spat of teachers having sex with students to get a clue-and every school that I am aware of has policies to prevent this stuff).

I should have thought of that. I'd be better off in Athens if I was gay because gay men seem to like me better than the women. I just don't have it in me.

"I just don't have it in me."

Yes, I'm childish. :) ...But you should've known better living in Athens... :)

I actually had two gay college girls as my girl scout leader.  No sexual stuff ever happened, but they were aboslutely terrible leaders (they would have been terrible no matter what).

My experiences in GS were terrible, I hated every minute of it, I wanted to quit (my mom wouldn't let me), and my experience with GS's pretty much makes me loath the whole organization.  I do like their cookies though, and admit to buying a few boxes every February.

Leon, of course there are sick homosexuals out there ready to victimize children. See NAMBLA, for instance.

But the simple fact of the matter is that pedophilia occurs in the heterosexual population at a far greater frequency than it does in the homosexual population. The number of pedophiles who identify as homosexual is miniscule, notwithstanding the gender of their victims. Thus, by excluding self-identified homosexuals from consideration as adult leaders, the Scouts are actually increasing the risk of exposing their members to a pedophile.

Fingers working faster than brain.

What do you, as a current Scoutmaster, think the BSA is trying to protect the boys in their charge from?

that Christ expressly repudiated Old Testament law, as did Paul (Colossians 2:22).

The youngest daughter will "bridge" to juniors this spring.  And then she will be done.  Our troop has decided to disband and just hang as a group of girls instead.  Too many hassles for the leaders to upgrade.

My girls will NEVER, I repeat never go to girl scout camp.  And it is sad, because I had a lot of fun at camp when I went as a junior.  I would never let them go above junior either.  And yes, the prevalence of lesbians in the organization is a primary reason.

I have 3 friends from various walks of life that have lesbian sisters.  All 3 of them became lesbians after either having an affair with their lesbian leader, lesbian camp counselor or being sexually active with other lesbians in the

troop.  No thanks.

I do realize that not every troop will have a lesbian leader, etc...but the prevalence of it in the leadership of GSA is enough for my husband to say no way.  

I will continue to buy the cookies for purely selfish reasons.  But only from Brownies.  

Not a comment on whether you know "many," but whether you always know you know.  Maybe it's more like 500,000.  Heck, maybe if all gays came out, we'd discover that we are the ones who ain't "normal"!

are joking.

The laws of nature would dictate that we would all be quite abnormal, regardless of how many chose to engage in that behavior.

Having known many teachers, I dare say many of them lead personal lives that probably "fly in the face of" your values...or the values of some other parents.  They are all human, so some are alcoholics, some take drugs, some shoplift, some commit adultery, some use profanity, some abuse their wives and/or their kids. You will never find anyone to teach school whose lifestyle is consistent with the values of every set of parents whose kids they are likely to teach.  Obviously, some of these people will eventually be found out and removed from teaching, but many will have long and happy careers; some will even be named Teacher of the Year.

So why worry specifically about someone who is gay as long as they don't bring it into the classroom?

By the way...what values are you trying to teach them that a gay lifestyle flies in the face of?  Is sexual orientation a value?

I guess it was sort of a joke.  I'm not sure what you mean when you say we would all be quite abnormal, but the post I was responding to pointed out that "normal" is a statisical term, which implies that whatever the most number of people are is, by definition, "normal."  By that definition, if it turned out that the majority of the population was gay, then being gay would be "normal," and being heterosexual would be "aberrant."

There are, of course, other definitions of "normal," but I wasn't referring to any of those.

that marriage is between a man and a woman.  Second, that you don't have sex before marriage.

Third, that God created man and woman to complement each other in procreation.  The list goes on.....

I know several gay teachers.  I taught with a couple that I would even consider friends.  The kept their lifestyle private and didn't discuss it with their collegues.  Nor did they publicly flaunt their preference.  At the end of the day though, I'd still prefer my child not be in their classroom.  And the same goes for all the other issues you raised.

In a school district where some friends live, it is in a teacher's contract that they can be reprimanded if they are seen somking in a public place such as a restaurant, etc...  Habitual abuse can be used as grounds for dismissal.  IMO, that is extreme, but I do see the point in trying to be positive role models for children.

My brother also teaches with a couple of gay teachers.  Particularly one female gym teacher.  That gives me concern, especially at the high school level.  

My gym teacher in high school was a lesbian.  She was very much in the closet, but it was still known.  And when she walked through the locker room doing her "shower" checks, it just gave me the willies.  I'd really prefer my child not have to go through that.

And lastly, I'm no dummy.  I am quite well aware of the fact that there are many teachers out there living double lives that would not be acceptable role models if their vices were ever revealed.  That doesn't mean that I'm not going to try to protect my child as much as possible.  

 

I don't believe you really care, but the Scout Handbook includes a pamphlet entitled How to Protect Your Children from Child Abuse: A Parent's Guide. This pamphlet is required reading for each boy and their parents. The boy and their parents must then discuss the contents of this pamphlet before the boy can earn the very first advancement in Scouting.

A boy in the Scout troop to which I belonged as a young scout was propositioned by a gay scout leader. I believe that since he was taught properly by his parents he was not abused by this man. His experience has led to my strong opinions on this topic.

But one of my gym teachers was probably a lesbian also.  If so, it was overshadowed by rumors of her drinking problem. All the same, we never saw any sign of either of those sides of her while she was on the job.  The only scandal we ever had involving a teacher was a heterosexual male who was changed with rape by one of his students, but I don't recall it inspiring anyone to feel uncomfortable with having heterosexual males teaching their kids, however poor a role model one might some day prove to be.

I guess that's the thing about "role models"...it is a role, and to me the question is how well they play it, not what they do in their private lives. It is of course harder to keep one's private life private in a small town.

The fact that someone is gay doesn't mean their lifestyle in any way refutes marriage between a man and a woman. Many gays are not married and don't wish to be.  And I think most kids get it that the fact someone who is never going to be married has sex outside of marriage doesn't set a standard for someone who expects to marry some day.

In any case, I don't see any of those as values.  I think one place America has gone seriously wrong is that we seem to have substituted political positions for legitimate values (eg, fairness, honesty, integrity, responsibility, compassion, etc).

surprise me.

"In any case, I don't see any of those as values."

with you more.  Unfortunately, America's public schools have become riddled with teachers that feel it is their moral obligation to impose their value sets on our kids.

So, we'd look to a different calculus teacher, thanks.

As for the atheist or muslim, not so much of a concern.  I have many friends that are atheist or at the very least agnostic, some are Jewish, and a cousin that is Hindu.  Religious preference is far different than sexual orientation, IMO.

And hey, it's my kid, so my opinion is really the only one that matters.  ;)

who lurks in the fog, only coming out to attack unsuspecting Redstate citizens, and then quietly disappearing again.

Did you hear about the married scout leader who molested several troop members? Perhaps you just think this was a heterosexual anomoly? Which it was, but no less so than your experience. Still the Boy Scouts would allow people like this to be leaders today if their disposition wasn't obvious. This is why it is BSA policy that no leader should be alone with any scout - something that would provide safety against the rare homosexual pedophile as well.  

conservatives usually accused the liberals of overestimating the gay population. Reason being, the more there are, the more reason to give them "special" (i.e. equal) rights.