Have you ever wondered how the boy scouts won their case for not having homosexuals in their groups? It was because they had huge amounts of evidence that proved that whenever a homosexual was allowed in a group someones innocence was violated. Some groups allowed it for the sake of tolerance and they got burned. But it gave the Boy Scouts the evidence they needed to prove that you cannot let someone of questionable morals around impressionable young people. There was not one case where a homosexual in a group kept his hands off!!! I pray the Boy Scouts never cave in and continue to stand firm.
30 comments
Have you ever wondered how the boy scouts won their case for not having homosexuals in their groups?
What are you talking about? There was never a case for them to win; they are a private organisation and have always enforced whatever rules they like, and one of those is banning homosexuals.
Where it gets hazy is where they get massive support from the government, which constitutes government endorsement of those unconstitutional policies - that's a case that hasn't really been addressed at all yet.
Yeah, cos, like, only homos molest kids, and no girls have ever been molested, like, ever.
The scouts suck anyway. Stuck-up little brats.
Evidence or it didn't happen.
EDIT:
Actually, the sentence said that, since they were a PRIVATE organisation which didn't offer a public service and didn't have lucrative goals, they were free to impose the rules they wanted. It said nothing of raping and, of course, there was no such a raping. Moreover, where did they get the evidence, if FBI, the APA and several peer-reviewed studies indicate that the vast majority of pederasts are straight married men in their fourties?
Have you ever wondered how the boy scouts won their case for not having homosexuals in their groups?
Sure. The same way the KKK won the right to "sponsor" a highway - the First Amendment. The court didn't rule on whether homosexuals (or the KKK) are good or bad. They just ruled that the First Amendment guarantees the right of the BSA to be assholes, and to exclude gay scoutmasters if their inclusion would significantly interfere with their assholery (assholiness?).
BTW, SCOTUS also ruled in other cases that a state can drop the BSA from its list of charities supported by state employee payroll deductions and kick their butts out of free city owned meeting quarters.
"was because they had huge amounts of evidence that proved that whenever a homosexual was allowed in a group someones innocence was violated."
I bet the rest of my income for LIFE that he can't produce this evidence!
So does someone actually "write" these "studies", or is there some kind of internet equivalent of a moldy bathroom where these things are born and spread?
Solomongrundy:
Yeah, that's pretty much how it is. We have Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, and never the twain shall meet (at least until they reach high school and find a private spot under the bleachers at the football field).
The Boy Scouts, as a private organization, is allowed ban whomever they wish. Including homosexuals, athiests and agnostics.
Of course, this resulted in them losing all thier government grants, 'special understandings', rent free use of government property, etc. The Boy Scouts went to court to win the continued grants and such, and have lost every case I know of.
Oh, and did you hear about the wonderful Boy Scout Leader in Texas who was caught with child porn on his work computer?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/29/scouts.charges/
NOT a homosexual, btw.
the right of the BSA to be assholes, and to exclude gay scoutmasters
And gay scouts -- that's been an issue for some of us (though I suspect that they were at least in part just upset when I came out that they'd all been out-hiked, outrun, out-navigated, out-shot, and just generally pwned by a gay guy). And non-theists. And girls (a policy which local troops/packs can lose their recognition for violating).
Hell, even relatively conservative San Diego has dumped the special treatment of the BSA.
Gays aren't interested in sex with children. You're getting them confused with the pedophiles and the child predators.
The funny thing is that while you are so worried about keeping the kids safe from the homosexuals, you overlook the real threats. Family members are by far the most likely people to sexually abuse children.
Have you ever wondered how the boy scouts won their case for not having homosexuals in their groups? It was because they had huge amounts of evidence that proved that whenever a homosexual was allowed in a group someones innocence was violated Actually it was because they asserted their constitutional rights as a private religious club[ .
So, no support from the state - or from me for that matter.
I said in another similar quote here a case that happened to me. I declined to sponsor two ladies from a now-defunct conservative ladies' association in Spain because, as the daughter of an Irish man and married to a half Greek man, I was not entitled to be part of an institution which promotes patriotism and Catholic morals(but it was no problem if I gave them my money). As with the case of the Boy Scouts, the ladies never said that the non-nationals or non-Catholics(or related to one of them)were more keen to cause trouble or to "rape" or corrupt children, it was a matter of consistency with their ideas. And their slippery slope, like in the boy scouts case, is that the same reason can be applied to the people who have to give them money.
"There was not one case where a homosexual in a group kept his hands off!!!"
I was a boy scout, and I am gay. Uhh, I never touched anyone, and no one touched me. Yea, I guess it's pretty stupid of me to even respond to this message. Oh well.
I was in the Scouts, and the only thing I've retained from it is wilderness survival and knot-tying.
Isn't that what the Scouts is about?
No one will probably ever see this comment, given the age of the quote, but I will STILL say this, because it needs to be said.
The BSA doesn't have ANY RIGHT to be counted as part of the Scouting Movement. ANY RIGHT. They have strayed so far from B-P's original ideas that it's amazing. Scouts are supposed to accept others for WHO THEY ARE. They are supposed to HELP OTHERS and have the MORAL HIGH GROUND in arguments.
I mean, the BSA Manual even SAYS that they are supposed to "accept others for who they are" - which should extend to homosexuals, atheists, girls and agnostics, yet it DOESN'T for some reason!
I am glad that I am English, and that our Scouting Movement is much more accepting then the BSA. I'm a girl and a bisexual, yet no one bats an eyelid. Our Leader - two of them, actually - are GIRLS! UGH!
There's my two pennies. DIAF, BSA bigots and DianeKY.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
