Boy Scouts and bull*@#

Here is something I never talked about before.

Apparently across the nation, there is a huge controversy involving the Boy Scouts and the lgbt community.

Many of you probably already know it. The Boy Scouts do not allow gays to serve as members or scoutmasters. The group's right as a private organization has been upheld by the Supreme Court in 2000.

And here is where the serpent starts to sting.

Because of the policy, the Boy Scouts have been losing a lot of support. According to Wikipedia:

About 50 of the 1300 local United Ways, including those in Miami, Orlando, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Seattle, have withdrawn all funding. The BSA has also lost all funding from several large corporations that had been regular donors, such as Chase Manhattan Bank, Levi Strauss, Fleet Bank, CVS/pharmacy, and Pew Charitable Trusts. For example, Pew Charitable Trusts, which had consistently supported the BSA for over fifty years, decided to cancel a $100,000 donation and cease future donations. A number of public entities (including the cities of Chicago, San Diego, Tempe, Buffalo Grove, Berkeley, and Santa Barbara, as well as the states of California, Illinois, and Connecticut) have canceled charitable donations (of money or preferential land access) that had historically been granted to the Scouts.

Most recently, the city of Philadelphia rescinded its decision to allow the Scouts to use a building rent-free. The Scouts are suing, but the city isn't backing down.

Now some folks, such as our friend Peter LaBarbera, have made this an issue of gays trying to force their way into the Scouts so that evil scoutmasters can "indoctrinate" young boys into homosexuality.

Of course that argument is nonsense so I'm not even going to discuss it.

Mostly because I believe that the Boy Scouts should be allowed to discriminate. I have always felt that the case of the Boy Scouts of America vs. Dale was not necessarily conducive to the lgbt community.

If the Boy Scouts feel that they as a private group should discriminate, then more power to them.

However (and you knew this was coming), as a private group, they don't have a right to public monies or the items that are paid for by such monies.

Public monies come from lgbt as well as heterosexuals. If the Scouts have a problem with gays as members, then the organization should have a problem with taking money from gays.

If the Boy Scouts feel that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath, then how can it justify taking money from the folks who "practice" homosexual conduct.

You simply can't have it both ways.

Of course some will probably accuse me of being mean. How can I attack a group that does a lot of good things in the community? How can I attack a group that teaches young boys to be responsible citizens?

That's just it. They do not teach all young boys to be responsible citizens; only heterosexual boys.

Our gay boys are left out in the cold.

And as long as they leave our gay boys out in the cold, the Boy Scouts do not deserve money from this gay man or any other gay man.

That's the Boy Scouts, now it's time for the bull*@# courtesy of Focus on the Family.

The group has sent out a talking points list for folks who want to criticize marriage equality.

Jeremy from Goodasyou has exposed the talking points for the lies they are in the style that has made him one of my favorite bloggers.

But one point from Focus on the Family's list bothers me so much that I have to jump in. It's this one:

Same-sex family is a vast, untested social experiment with children.

Maybe it's just me but that is a vile thing to say.

The statement refuses to acknowledge the existence of same sex families, which have existed for many, many years.

And that phraseology "vast, untested social experiment," denigrates same sex family because it infers that lgbts choose to create, adopt, or take in children not because of a natural human impulse and not because we feel that we want to nurture a family, but because of a Machiavellian attempt to take over society.

The statement infers that lgbts are not humans but agreeable cogs willing to sacrifice the happiness and well-being of a child for a social endeavor.

That idea is a fiendish lie.

What's next? Accusing black women of having children simply for a welfare check?