The Boy Scouts of America and yesterday's decision to allow openly homosexual boys and teens in the ranks is not much of a surprise. After all, many members of the National Council made clear that they wanted to see the change.
Of course since they NC did not go all the way, so to speak, and allow openly homosexual scoutmasters, this is not over yet as far as the left is concerned. Many on the right are ready to pull up stakes and leave the Scouts all together. What kind of Scouting group they would form is any one's guess.
But here is something interesting.
In the linked article, the vote of the 1,400 member National Council was 61% for ending the ban and 39% in favor of keeping things the way that they are.
Yet in a survey sent to leaders, parents and youth leaders, the 200,000 that responded, well that was sure not the same as this vote. For the results of "the most comprehensive listening exercise in Scouting's history", the results showed the polar opposite result. In that, 64% opposed making the change and 34% supported the change. What's more is that the actual young boys and teens directly affected were some of the staunchest opponents of the change.
So much for actually listening to the people that count.
See, the Scouts get a lot of corporate cash. And you know how those eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll, conservative big companies HATE the gays. Oh, wait just one minute. Corporate America has already been emasculated by the twin threats of the left and their gay lemmings. So since they have been whipped, they implored on how bad it would look on them to keep this ban going.
So, Corporate America, the hard left and the gay lemmings tag-teamed and ignored the actual members and said, sure, it's cool to have gay boys and teens be Scouts.
Now, FTR, I am very torn about this on a lot of levels.
I am very concerned that this is the continuance of sexualizing very young boy and girls. It has almost succeeded especially among young girls known as tweens, usually between 10-14 years old. They are essentially being taught that that same Corporate America that they HAVE to look a certain way. DRESS a certain way. And all are not promoting modesty but a perverse sense of sexuality that at one time was deemed deviant.
Not any more.
Think that boy tweens, just beginning to recognize that they kind of like girls, are not going to be weirded out when say little Johnny tells them how cool it is to like other boys? Or what if little Johnny is not even sure he does or does not like girls? Think his fellow Scouts are going to steer him to boys or girls?
This is just one can of worms that is opened up.
But what makes me torn is a certain amount of admiration if one accepts that he likes boys or teens and WANTS to be a Boy Scout. It certainly breaks a lot of stereotypes, often perpetuated by the very hard left and gay lemmings, of the "right" gay male.
But at the end of the day, the Boy Scouts of America is a private organization. It does have the right to set criteria for membership. If one had been, until yesterday, no gays in the group, even the Supreme Court believes that they have that right.
I am a Freemason. We also set a very high bar for membership. And we do not allow women Masons. However, there is the Eastern Star and that is the women's group. Men may belong to Eastern Star, but women can not be a Mason. And part of being a Mason is the belief in God. An atheist can not be made a Mason. A person convicted of serious crimes cannot be made a Mason.
I am sure that some people think it is a bad thing that we have such high standards. And that we do not allow women Masons. But they have been part and parcel of Masonic membership for as long as Masonry has been active in the United States.
The real fact is that the left and their fellow travellers, in this case left-wing gays, do not like private rights.
What are private rights?
Well, they are the right to private property. The right to associate with whom one wants to. The right to keep more of your money that you earn honestly rather than being taxed exhorbantly. The right to believe, for lack of a better word, the hokey. Like conspiracy theories.
Should it be a crime for men to want to be in a group of other men no matter their station in life? I am sure that somewhere someone is hatching how to make Masons accept women. Trust me on that one.
Should it be a crime to own private property? To own a home, hell more than one home? To own a car? To own a television? Some on the hard left believe that. They look at private property as some classism.
Should it be a crime that if you work hard, move up the ladder and are rewarded for it, you should keep more of that money? Again, the hard left believes that. There is no way a shmoe can get to where I am talking about. Why it is only a one percent of filthy, stinking, rich fat-cats and they should be punished for daring to be a success.
Should one be branded a criminal if the believe in way-out ideas? I mean, I abhor the "Rev." Fred Phelps, a Democrat BTW, and his hatred towards homosexuals. And while I believe he does have a right for his inbred followers to protest at whatever, the community has a right to set a standard regarding it. I do not think that he should be thrown in jail because he and his lemmings have a strange interpretation of Christianity. Yet some on the left would do just that.
Freedom includes the freedom to set up groups of like-minded people and to set their standards for membership. If one does not like it, they can form a similar group of people and set up their own standard for membership.
What happened yesterday in the Boy Scouts of America caving to the left and their gay lemmings is another assault on people's right of free association.
For free association is a foreign concept to people that do not believe in that themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment