Oh, man. You guys are right–this is one of the best illustrations of the profound, hopeless stupidity of liberals like mike. A media shield law, the enforcement of which would fall under the jurisdiction of Obama’s DOJ…headed by Attorney General Eric Holder…the same Eric Holder that’s been spying on reporters…the same Eric Holder assigned by Obama to investigate Eric Holder for spying on reporters….and has now committed perjury while testifying about it.

Liberals SUPPORT government using the full force of federal agencies to violate our constitutional rights and destroy our lives. If they didn’t, they would abandon this criminal administration and stand with their fellow Americans, demanding prosecutions, terminations and civil damages. But they don’t. They stand with the government. (Looking at you, mike!) We are on our own.

P.S. Think Obama and other liberals are ‘outraged’ that the IRS spent years targeting conservative groups and intentionally violating their constitutional rights? Think again. They want to sweep it under the rug so it can continue. One of their strategies to accomplish that is to try and turn this scandal into ‘an open dialogue’ about tax exemption reform.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/25/former-npr-ceo-ken-stern-the-irs-had-the-right-idea.html

These despicable people have been caught doing EXACTLY what we knew they wanted to do. Now, they want to have ‘a dialogue.’ FU*K THAT. There will be no dialogue.

As for the shame, that’s up to the BSA. For starters the BSA allowing gay adults to participate will help in ridding the shame. After that, they have to figure out how to deal with the sponsors that continue to regard homosexuality as sinful, as you suggest. Many enterprises run by the Roman Catholic Church do employ openly gay adults without issue. I’m one of them. So, I think the BSA could figure it out, if that’s the direction they want to go.

As for normal, here’s one way to think of it. Most people are not left-handed or Armenians, for example. But we typically don’t throw “not normal” in their faces when it comes to their identity or characteristic. No one would think of saying that a boy scout could be left-handed or Armenian, but as an adult, they have to start using their right hand, renounce their ethnic background, or they cannot belong to the scouts any longer. As to expressing negativity, perhaps whatever policy they have when persons express negativity against persons of different races or religions could work.

I guess I don’t see of the difficulty of an openly gay man have with “duty of God,” “reverent,” and being “morally straight.” I don’t think most people interpreted “straight” to have anything to do with heterosexuality except to those who used it as an excuse to bar gay people from being a boy scout. Also, I don’t think we are asking teens or the volunteer leaders too much here. When I was a boy scout, we were taught to be tolerant and accepting of persons of different religions, cultures, etc. I don’t see a big problem with including homosexuality here. As for the teens, the ones who are “morally straight” won’t have difficulty with this either.

Or stay, but become ashamed of his sexuality? What is the administrative course of action that would prevent a gay person from being “ashamed” of his sexuality? How does the organization go about identifying and addressing the specific issues that cause one to be ashamed? How does the organization go about and addressing the extent to which being “ashamed” resides principally within the one ashamed or forces aimed at the person or the combination of the two? Does the administrative source need to find and identify gays in advance of his becoming ashamed and arm him with special coping skills? Should the administrative source attempt to create an environment in which negativity about homosexuality is addressed as an organizational infraction?

Or now, be okay with his sexuality because he is still only a kid, but can only remain a scout as an adult, if he renounces his sexuality? Can an openly gay person be a scout leader? I believe that is your question. I have no idea. But that question tacitly addresses what “duty to God” and “reverent” and “morally straight” mean in the scout oath and the scout law. Therefore, it is apparent that the Judeo-Christian ethic is on trial with the scouts.

The core problem with attacking the Judeo-Christian ethic revolves around the word “normal” which is defined as: The usual, average, or typical state or condition. When dealing with sexuality among males, “normal” is bifurcated into “normal” for heterosexuals and “normal” for homosexuals in terms of sexual orientation. Since heterosexuals are at least 95% of the populations by most studies, it is highly likely that scouting population would generally parallel those percentages. This, I presume, is the core of the conundrum when dealing with boys who are in the midst of dealing with their hormones. Teens in particular are obsessed with what is “acceptable” and what is not. What are we actually asking of these teens and their largely volunteer leaders?

I am not sure what was allowed or “allowed” regarding talking about boyfriends, but my perception was that anyone who talked about a boyfriend, talking about a cute boy, etc., would have led to bullying of some form. And if I had done that, I’m thinking that Asst. Scoutmaster (our Scoutmaster was more of a figurehead) would have had a talk with my father about it, and strongly suggest to him that he have me cool it with the boy talk. Again, I don’t know this as fact, but my perception of what would most likely have happened.

There are different agenda out there, and I can’t speak to others, only mine. For most people, it’s the age when one would be a boy scout where one starts becoming aware of their own sexuality and sexual attractions. And let’s face it, the reality is that some boy scouts are going to realize that they are gay while a boy scout. So what should a boy in that situation do? Does the BSA really want this boy to quit simply for being gay? Or stay, but become ashamed of his sexuality? Or now, be okay with his sexuality because he is still only a kid, but can only remain a scout as an adult, if he renounces his sexuality? Anyway, this last question will be one of the questions for the BSA will likely be looking into for the next few years.

I don’t know what the future holds in terms of some kind of inclusion quotas. I certainly believe it should not happen regardless. I’m guessing it won’t happen, partly because the BSA will allow participation by all gay persons soon enough. And it will be more internal pressure if they believe that gay persons aren’t joining because the perception is still that gay persons are not welcome.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/23/Obama-nominates-personnel-management

that apparently was not allowed in the Boy Scouts until now.

Pat, were you openly gay when you were in the Scouts or were you in the “don’t ask, don’t tell” mode?

Were you actually “not allowed” to talk about your boyfriends or boyfriend fantasies, or were you avoiding reactions that you would react to as bullying and stigmatizing?

I am not trying to pry so much as to clarify. Perhaps some in society want to mold the scouts to accept the sexuality of gays as “normal” and not worth remarking about. Others in society may want to mold the scouts to ignore and look past the sexuality of gays and “avoid” the whole issue. Others in society may want to mold the scouts to be leaders in promoting the “gay agenda.”

The problem with all sweeping generalities is that the presumptions underlying the generalizations are not as universal as the people making the generalization might believe.

Will we see a time when there is a real or tacit push for scouts to recruit gays for statistical purposes? The politics of minority “inclusion” has been well worked out.

Rusty, I agree. Good post at IGF, and some excellent comments there.

Ted, excellent points as well.

I also agree that private organizations determine their membership. But I also believe that it’s in the best interest of all involved to allow gay people to participate. I believe progress has been made in allowing openly gay teenagers* to be boy scouts. However, the message is still that being gay is wrong, because once the scout is no longer a child, he can no longer participate. It’s almost as if the Boy Scouts are advocating gay adults to begin the process of becoming ex-gay when they become an adult. I’m guessing the Boy Scouts will see the problems with this themselves, and within ten years, will vote to allow participation of gay adults as well.

* Perhaps I’m wrong, but I get the feeling that many think when a teen comes out as openly gay, it automatically means he is engaging in sex. This is no more true than straight teens.

For me personally, I was a boy scout until I was 14. I made it to second class (no pun intended). I don’t recall there being anything regarding sexual orientation. It was assumed everyone was straight, I suppose, and anyone who was gay didn’t say, mostly because he kept quiet about it outside of scouts as well. When people started realizing that homosexuality should not be kept in the closet, the Girl Scouts went in the right direction, while the Boy Scouts did not.

I thought “mentoring” among same-sex couples was commendable and a step toward enlightenment and an act of courageous diversity.

Heliotrope, I would say no more so than “mentoring” among opposite-sex couples is commendable and a step toward whatever and an act of courageous whatever else.

Think of it this way:

Makes sense, right?

Jman, I agree with this. In terms of the topic, with regards to gay boy scouts, it shouldn’t be their primary consideration either. When I was a boy scout, sexuality was definitely not the primary concern, but of course, sometimes fellow boy scouts did talk about girlfriends, or talk about girls they were attracted to, or even talk about having sex with girls, imagined or real. I recall on a camping trip, we had a chaplain talk to us about sexuality. I’m sure this continued well after I was no longer a scout. But while it was becoming acceptable for a gay teenager to talk about boyfriends as it is for a straight teen to talk about girlfriends (outside of scouts), etc., that apparently was not allowed in the Boy Scouts until now.

Jman1961, I would like see gay teenagers treated just like any other teenagers. How would would you like to see them treated?
Comment by SC.Swampfox — May 25, 2013 @ 11:19 am

I’m in favor of that as well, but here’s the biggest roadblock to achieving it:

When so many people (most of them well intended, like you) continually make the fact of a person being GAY their primary consideration, and by their words and deeds (both explicit and implicit), try to force everyone else to make it THEIR primary consideration.
The plan, ostensibly, is to show how much common ground exists, but the execution is to relentlessly point out what the differences are, even when the differences have no bearing on the issue at hand.

Think of it this way:

…not judged by the color of their skin their sexual orientation, but by the content of their character…

Makes sense, right?

Fail, again.

Kaitlyn Hunt, 18, was expelled from school for dating and having sex with her 14-year-old girlfriend, who was a fellow player on her basketball team. Hunt was arrested and charged with two felony counts of lewd and lascivious battery on a child 12 to 16 years.

I thought “mentoring” among same-sex couples was commendable and a step toward enlightenment and an act of courageous diversity.

Kevin Jennings was made Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar.” Jennings was the founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and he was appointed by Obama in no small part because of his GLSEN work.

Gateway Pundit, back in 2009 had a very interesting post about Jennings and GLSEN. Here is a nugget from that post from a group that reviewed a handful of books on the GLSEN reading list for school children:

We were unprepared for what we encountered. Book after book after book contained stories and anecdotes that weren’t merely X-rated and pornographic, but which featured explicit descriptions of sex acts between pre-schoolers; stories that seemed to promote and recommend child-adult sexual relationships; stories of public masturbation, anal sex in restrooms, affairs between students and teachers, five-year-olds playing sex games, semen flying through the air. One memoir even praised becoming a prostitute as a way to increase one’s self-esteem. Above all, the books seemed to have less to do with promoting tolerance than with an unabashed attempt to indoctrinate students into a hyper-sexualized worldview.

Now, with this Jennings guy being a “czar” and “guru” for public school sex education, I thought that the gay and lesbian activist world had pretty much made the “gay victim card” an instrument against a case like the Kaitlyn Hunt from happening.

To be clearer, I thought that gays in the scouts and gay PDA in schools and gay liaisons in school bathrooms were all off the radar and considered to be diversity protected.

To my knowledge, no one is going to the streets in a mass demonstration to keep gays out of scouting. Of course I don’t watch the MSM channels, but if there were a major “keep-gays-out-of-scouts” focus out there, I know the MSM would go wall-to-wall in covering it.

Are we on the horns of a dilemma here? Has society “accepted” gay sex between two (only) sensible adults who wish to live out an ideal marriage, but society is still edgy about the “icky” side of gay stuff?

Put another way, what are the “boundaries” of the normalization of gay lifestyles? The easy answer is that everything goes and it is nobody else’s business. But that is such a pointless dodge from facing the reality of how society functions.

What would be the reaction to an advanced scout working on a project to help a tenderfoot discovery his sexuality? Or, the reaction if an advanced scout were to be blocked by the scouting leaders from helping a tenderfoot from discovering his sexuality? After all, the only clear difference between the two boys is that one is gay and one might be. So, tending the garden by the gay in helping the other one to grow blossom would be good thing. Right?

ND30 you are a strange bird.

Comment by SC.Swampfox — May 25, 2013 @ 9:42 am

That’s high praise coming from the likes of you.

It must seem strange to encounter someone who thinks for themselves and doesn’t submit to the ‘herd mentality’, which is so common these days. I’ll bet you find it more than a bit threatening, too.

http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/i-team-emails-describe-irs-criteria-list-for-targeting-tea-party-groups-in-cincinnati-office

In addition to the article, it has a “scrubbed” e-mail trail back & forth within the IRS. This is NOT the Cincinnati Office — this is the Beltway…Washington, D.C., talking about how to pick “Tea Party” Cases.

It’s positively George Orwellian.

~ Fred

Really?

Smooches
http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l569/rusty98119/abfeea64.jpg