BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Harry 

On 7/28/10 12:26 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:10:29 -0400, Harry
wrote:

On 7/28/10 11:56 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:33:57 -0400, Harry
wrote:

The liberals don't seem to understand a concept as simple as "freedom
of association". It the concept that the courts correctly applied
when deciding that the BSoA were within their legal rights to control
who they allowed to associate with their underage children.

Funny, in that the liberals don't want anything like religion forced
on them, but they want to force open homosexuality on a private youth
organization.

As a private organization that is blatantly discriminatory, the Boy
Scouts should not receive any public funding, nor should they be able to
use any public facilities, nor should any public officials have anything
to do with them.

It's sad for me to say that, because I was a cub scout, boy scout and
sea scout for many years in the good old days, and I enjoyed our
activities.

I suppose it is simply because they don't want to endure a "priest"
type scandal.

The Boy Scouts have already had those sorts of scandals.

Hence the policy. It may be backward thinking in the 21st century but
I bet more than half of the parents agree with the policy. The scouts
are struggling to survive and they simply reflect the values of their
target demographic.
Public funding is a separate issue but the government funds a lot of
things we find unacceptable on some level. A lot of people think
churches should pay taxes.
The recent document dump says we are funding the Taliban.

Do the boy scouts have a policy against child molesters? I suspect what
they want to prevent is child molestation, and that sort of activity
typically is not the kind of "fun" gay men prefer.

I can just hear the right-wing trash exclaim after some molester is
arrested for buggering Boy Scouts, "Well, at least he wasn't gay."