I applaud the BSA for preventing adult leaders who choose to indulge in a homosexual lifestyle, however, I am deeply saddened at their willingness to allow gay members under the age of 18. Here's why:
1. This is contradictory to the BSA oath, which includes the phrase "morally straight". The LDS church, and the Baptist church, both urged the BSA to keep the traditional membership policy. The LDS church and the Baptists are some of the largest contributor to the Boy Scouts, and allowing the gay members may shrink their religious support as homosexuality is against their biblical teaching. Furthermore, the Boy Scouts have a policy regarding religion: all children must have some type of religious affiliation. In most cases, the kids come from some Semitic religion (Islam, Christianity, Judaism). All of which oppose homosexuality. To allow homosexuals is not "morally straight" in the minds of the BSA's main religious body, according to natural law theory, etc. We might as well remove morally straight from the oath.
2. I cannot find any reasons (yet) which support their decision, other than the gay lobby pushing this. However, if homosexuality is not genetic or natural, which it isn't, homosexuals are not a protected suspect class. As such, any reason relating to the legal threats of discrimination or upholding a immutable lifestyle are irrelevant.
3. Allowing gay children but not gay adults tells the BSA that homosexuality is ok, and this begs the question, why not adults? This will lead to discrimination lawsuits.
4. A recent survey of 200,000 leaders and parents affiliated with the BSA shows that 61% (LOL, gays were allowed in with 61%) support the policy of excluding gays, and only 34% want gays to be allowed in.
5. People would be up in arms about allowing men into girl scouts. Why? Because intercourse is likely to occur, and this is not what the girl scouts want. If girls were to come into boyscouts, they would be given a separate living quarters on campgrounds, as is what happens at any other camp. No one would have a problem with this. If people did this to homosexuals, people would sue. Which is odd, because only women can claim the rights to a suspect class (under current evidence, at least. Who knows, maybe we will find a gay gene[s]). The only reason people care about this is because it is a political hot button issue. It is very hypocritical, and simply does not make sense. Unless we make allowing girls into the BSA an issue, then the fact that people care about this is really ignorant itself... but its called BOYscouts... And the same goes for you: morally straight. So, its the same issue. The fact that girls made a separate but equal program but gays have merely shows what the gay agenda wants: to pervert another institution.
I might sound like an extremist, but so did Moishe the Beadle.
Here is a more scholarly paper I put together on this. It's arguments still stand: http://social-conservatism.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-boy-scouts-and-homosexuality.html
1. This is contradictory to the BSA oath, which includes the phrase "morally straight". The LDS church, and the Baptist church, both urged the BSA to keep the traditional membership policy. The LDS church and the Baptists are some of the largest contributor to the Boy Scouts, and allowing the gay members may shrink their religious support as homosexuality is against their biblical teaching. Furthermore, the Boy Scouts have a policy regarding religion: all children must have some type of religious affiliation. In most cases, the kids come from some Semitic religion (Islam, Christianity, Judaism). All of which oppose homosexuality. To allow homosexuals is not "morally straight" in the minds of the BSA's main religious body, according to natural law theory, etc. We might as well remove morally straight from the oath.
2. I cannot find any reasons (yet) which support their decision, other than the gay lobby pushing this. However, if homosexuality is not genetic or natural, which it isn't, homosexuals are not a protected suspect class. As such, any reason relating to the legal threats of discrimination or upholding a immutable lifestyle are irrelevant.
3. Allowing gay children but not gay adults tells the BSA that homosexuality is ok, and this begs the question, why not adults? This will lead to discrimination lawsuits.
4. A recent survey of 200,000 leaders and parents affiliated with the BSA shows that 61% (LOL, gays were allowed in with 61%) support the policy of excluding gays, and only 34% want gays to be allowed in.
5. People would be up in arms about allowing men into girl scouts. Why? Because intercourse is likely to occur, and this is not what the girl scouts want. If girls were to come into boyscouts, they would be given a separate living quarters on campgrounds, as is what happens at any other camp. No one would have a problem with this. If people did this to homosexuals, people would sue. Which is odd, because only women can claim the rights to a suspect class (under current evidence, at least. Who knows, maybe we will find a gay gene[s]). The only reason people care about this is because it is a political hot button issue. It is very hypocritical, and simply does not make sense. Unless we make allowing girls into the BSA an issue, then the fact that people care about this is really ignorant itself... but its called BOYscouts... And the same goes for you: morally straight. So, its the same issue. The fact that girls made a separate but equal program but gays have merely shows what the gay agenda wants: to pervert another institution.
I might sound like an extremist, but so did Moishe the Beadle.
Here is a more scholarly paper I put together on this. It's arguments still stand: http://social-conservatism.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-boy-scouts-and-homosexuality.html
No comments:
Post a Comment