Im reading a slight homophobia in that statement, at the very least, it is a one-sided statement. Just because a boy is not attracted to another boy doesnt mean he is heterosexual to present the other side of your point.. as if heterosexual is better or homosexual is something to "not decide on right away" as if its bad or something.

And on what planet does "during the teen years" sexuality not play a major role?

"Im reading a slight homophobia in that statement, at the very least,..."---Drewboo

You'd be asking children if they were gay or not.

And you see nothing wrong with that?

Drewboo - Im reading a slight heterohobia in that statement, at the very least, it is a one-sided statement.

Im reading a slight heterophobia in that statement, at the very least, it is a one-sided statement - Drewboo

great comment Tommy...are we really debating this issue in 2013?

Ben, so do you support others who do not hate christian people, but do not want to support them, do business with them, rent to them, or have anything to do with them, and believe that they need help? It is a two way street. I personally believe that Boy Scouts should be allowed to limit their membership, as long as they are not tax free and do not use public schools and public facilities, but rather are fully a private christian religious organization as they state.

Ignorant.

The funny thing is that your life would probably be impossible to live without interaction and support of gay people. You just fail to realize it. You fail to realize that gay people are in EVERY sector of every industry. They make the keyboard you type on, support the internet you use, fight your fires, defend your country, cook your food. The one consolation is that the bigot sector shrinks daily.

You are a sad person. This nation is quickly starting to see your type of Christianity for what it is. And because of people like you, a backlash against all forms of Christianity is coming to America. I dont think a choice such as "religion" that you are not born with should be protected against taxes or discrimination - to me that is like "protecting" racism. Its a choice. Being born homosexual or heterosexual is not a choice. Choices should not be given the same level of protections.

"You are a sad person. This nation is quickly starting to see your type of..."---Drewboo

Who decides if a child is supposedly gay or not?

You?

Sounds like you need help. There are gay people all around you, sitting next to you, socializing with you, own the favorite places you like to go. If you want nothing to do with them, you might as well stay home by yourself and never leave. You should be ashamed of your ignorance. UGGH!

"Sounds like you need help. There are gay people all around you, sitting ..."---Gail Pickney

You, among others, are missing the point. The subject is the ludicrous question "Should the Boy Scouts Allow Gay Members"?

In other words, put the BSA, the scouts themselves---or anyone for that matter---in the position of having to decide just which child must be gay or not?

So as to be "allowed" or not? "Tolerated" or not?

Moreover, based on the premise that "being born homosexual or heterosexual is not a choice": " the nature born with"?

Have I missed something?

That contrary to the evidence of the actual genitalia "born with," has an over-riding 'Nature, or Feeling, of Being Gay' gene been discovered?

What's next? Sexual Orientation Merit Badges?

Excellent points Don;

The 2000 Supreme Court case ruled 5-4 in the BSA’s favor centered on the institutions core values of adhering to Christian principles. If the determination of admitting homosexuals is transferred from the national to the local level, these principles will no longer be a core value.

If we don’t think lawsuits, test cases, de facto recruitment and affirmative action will not follow the possible adoption of the policy as it was proposed; and if we think the vast homosexual rights lobby will finally leave the Scouts alone if the policy is changed, we do not understand the drive of the political, moral - and even “religious” left.

Despite their lofty rhetoric, these homosexual activists aren’t genuinely interested in “equality.” Nothing has ever prevented the creation of an equivalent Scouting group that specifically celebrates whatever values, or lack thereof, are currently fashionable on the left. It’s obvious to me that such a group would attract few members, so instead of building something on their own, the goal has been to infiltrate and destroy from within traditional organizations that engage in character formation. Whether the BSA admits gays on a national level or it collapses altogether, it doesn’t matter to them

Either way will work toward eliminating a constant reminder that some still believe their conduct is wrong or sinful. They long for us ALL to see them as "normal".

"Despite their lofty rhetoric, these homosexual activists aren’t genuinely interested in 'equality.'"---Steve Terrence

I agree. I don't even think they can think or even want to.

Ex:

Lets suppose for moment that there is a gene predisposting sexual orientation that actually overides the gene predisposing the actual genitalia endowed.

If that be the case, then there must be gay boys already "sitting with" etc. the rest of the boys.

So? Where's the "exclusion"?

What, then, is their point?

Gail Pickney,

"Sounds like you need help with comprehending reality. There are straight people all around you, sitting next to you, socializing with you, own the favorite places you like to go." - If you want to see gay men lead our sons on camping trips and be role models for their developing masculinity so they can fulfill their place in society as mature heterosexuals - you’re delusional. You should be ashamed of your ignorance.

" You should be ashamed of your ignorance."---Steve Tenance

Pickney, among others, should be ashamed of the deliberate burden they are putting on our youth.

And that deliberate burden we are supposedly putting on our youth is .....?

Typical RIGHT WING BREEDER BULL $HIT. "Religion is just a crutch for LO$ERS WHO CAN'T THINK FOR THEM SELFS; DON'T BE A LIMPING LO$ER, BEN!

exactly what Jesus would do...not!

Good idea - that will quickly kill of the entire organization. heart attacks for everyone.

"Good idea - that will quickly kill of the entire organization. heart attacks for everyone."---Drewboo

Whew! What must all those folks think of statement like that?

All those folks who (gay included) consumed over "one and a half billion pounds" of fried chicken wings last Super Bowl Sunday?

"It is a wonderful movement that I enjoyed as a child..."----Tom Crick

"...the movement have become politicized..."

Certainly Obama has made it clear that gays and lesbians vote while children do not.

"Tucker scouts now have a great chance to say quickly that we welcome all comers..."

Hunh? Who is to declare which of the "all comers" scouts, from Tenderfoot to Eagle, must be gay or not?

How is that to be declared?

From the mouths of the babes themselves?

A doctor's note?

From the mouths of their parents?

Including same-sex couples?

A Pope Obama Commission on Sexual Orientation Applied 101?

Or, if not subordinant, forfeit tax-money paid?

The BSA itself be listed as a "hate group"?

blame it on Obama...yawn

"How could anyone shun and stigmatize a young boy because of the nature he was born with?"---David Bundrick

Baloney.

The better question should be just how any adult must concede anything to persons who actually organize, promote and predicate just which candidates and even issues they, and others, should vote for based on sexual orgasm?

I’ll tell you what God says David Bundrick - “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, … will inherit the kingdom of God. >>And such were some of you.<< But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

We are ALL sinners in need of a Savior. If we deny our sin then the truth is not in us. If we continue in our sin and refuse to repent, then a true Bible believing church would be justified in refusing such participation in worship until we did so.

Likewise, as a private organization founded on Christian principles, it’s no different with the Scouts. They can refuse those who reject their standards without being justly accused of being “very discriminatory”. If you don’t like it, start your own scouts; you certainly have the right to do so. Trust me; we won’t cry discrimination for not letting us join.

Give me evidence that a boy is born with a "homosexual nature". Gays keep babbling about some kind of "scientific evidence", where is it? Im ready to challenge that false nonsense. Gays are under the illusion that if they repeat that garbage enough times with a straight face that people will believe it - Im not falling for it and neither should anyone else.

"If you receive federal money, then you cannot exclude anyone. ... If you dont want gays, then you dont get tax dollars."

Tax dollars are ours just as much as yours! Look at our Jamborees;

Every four years, the Boy Scouts of America holds a national Scout jamboree, where for ten days, approximately 30,000-40,000 Scouts camp out and participate in a wide variety of activities. At the time of the case, the US Department of Defense was the official host of the jamboree. From 1981 until 2010, the jamboree was held at Fort A.P. Hill, a US Army base in Virginia. The US Government spent an average of $2 million a year towards hosting of the jamboree.

In 2005, a U.S. District Court ruled that the DOD's spending on national Scout jamborees violates the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. The decision was subsequently reversed by the US Court of Appeals on April 4, 2007 in Winkler vs Gates which ruled that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing as taxpayers to bring the suit in the first place. Therefore, the 2010 Jamboree at Fort A.P. Hill and future support by DOD of Jamborees will continue as before.

I recall while, while being a Tenderfoot, our troop being the "Honor Guard" for our Scout Master's wedding. He had married a terrific gal.

Who will be sued nowadays for even Tenderfoots, when invited, not being color guards for same-sex marriages?

Their parents?

The church for being the wedding's site?

The BSA itself?

The Tenderfoots themselves?

Really?? Then why is ALL WHITE, HOMOPHOBIC 'Buckhead Baseball' allowed to be a TAX EXEMPT TAX FREE 'NON-PROFIT' when they kick this U.S. law abiding gay crossdresser out of a city of Atlanta public park?? All i did was WALK ON THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK!

www.StopBaptistPredators.com Dr. Charles Stanley employed a predator for 18 years & who about his past. 1st Baptist NEVER warned the parents what so ever; how sick & disgusting is that??? www.StopBaptistpredators.org/TommyGilmore.html

Don:
1. I'm not at all claiming men preying on boys are not gay. Perhaps (segments of) the church is through their ability to sweep continual abuse cases/stories under the rug.

2. There is no age limit on gay. We're talking scouts which overwhelmingly consists of minors.

3. Gay does NOT exclude men preying on boys in the church in MY opinion. However, when the church continues to allow these men to practice in positions which (a) have access to children and (b) condemn the gay lifestyle; it just boggles my mind.

4. Not at all. What I am saying is that (largely) people are standing behind the church or religion when it comes to the boy scouts accepting gay children/leaders. Yet the amount of scandal in their OWN house is absolutely revolting.

What I'm saying is that I don't feel that the chuch has any room to talk when it comes to sexual abuse. That's all. And that's just my opinion, yours may well be different.

You are a troll and obviously have no concept for the meaning of words. Pedophile is a term which means adults who are attracted to children. Pedo = child, Phile = amorous/sexual/friendly. Just like heteros sarkos in the BIble when the Sodomites were condemned for going after "strange flesh" that is the human-angel interaction (heteros obviously cant mean homosexuality). Pedophile is a similar term because the adult is going after a non-adult. I wouldnt classify that as homosexual or heterosexual because its just inappropriate either way, just like its inappropriate for a human and an angel (of any perceived gender) to have sex. If a human was having sex with an animal, you wouldnt look at the genitals of the animal to determine if its "ok" heterosexuals animal sex or "icky" homosexual animal sex.

It is obvious that your thinking is very elementary - I dont expect you to understand much more than primary colors and letters of the alphabet, so I am not engaging you, just your asinine comments.

"2. There is no age limit on gay. We're talking scouts which overwhelmingly consists of minors."---Jeff K

I had meant: Since when does the definition "gay" have an age limit on whom they can have relations?

Exactly don!

A male child molester who molests a young boy is a homosexual.

Not all gays are child molesters. However all child molesters who molest children of the same sex are homosexual. It is this type of homosexual that fathers of young boys in the scouts are rightfully concerned about - and want to keep them as far away from their sons as possible.

"It is this type of homosexual that fathers of young boys in the scouts are rightfully concerned about..."---Steve Tenance

That and more.

Check out the history of the Spartans who, with the sanction---and indeed under the direction---of the State, homosexualized and pedophiled themselves out of existance.

But that must be "natural."

Right?

In anticipation of argument to the contrary: the Spartans, who eventually fell not to the Persians, but instead to their fellow Greeks, were reviled by their fellow Greeks and especially Athenians.

Not only because the Spartans were the only Greeks who enslaved other Greeks but because also the Spartans' having actually institutionalized homosexuality and pedophilia to (except for rare conjugal visits) the absolute segregation of men from women, the removal of the children from their natural parents, and from fellow siblings, to be raised by the State: by the States' most successful homosexuals and pedophiles.

Homosexuals and pedophiles so engrossed with their own self-gratification that, eventually but soon enough, the State simply could not reproduce enough warriors to protect and enforce itself.

You got that jimmie and multiple personalities???

ROFLMAO....WOW!

"Why must the Boy Scouts cave into public pressure and change their values just because 'the gay agenda' says so?"---John Hansen

Because Pope Obama said so.

Just prior to the start of the Super-Bowl he declared, in regard to the BSA, what must be "good and right" for gays and lesbians.

Just as he declared---and decreed---what must be "good and right" for the illegals' children born stateside.

When he was in fact quoting the MxGov's declaration supposedly rationalizing their registering the same children born stateside as Mexico's citizens.

Next step: "Path to Gender Orientation."

"The curious thing about these controversies is that the discussion seems to revolve around minority rights--without any balance to majority rights."---Phil

"Throwing bombs" Filemon?

Or, as even a Democrat Congressman put it yesterday (re: "the "sequester"), "rolling grenades"?

"People are born gay."---FamilyofFour

It's one thing to delude yourself.

Quite another to delude others.

Especially children.

"How about all those mentally retarded kids? Children that are born blind, in wheelchairs, poor kids ????"---FamilyofFour

You mean, if they wanted to join the Boys Scouts, they'd have to declare themselves gay or not, or be determined to be gay or not, so gays can be "allowed" and "tolerated" too?

don Gabacho--
your not really gonna argue that gay people choose to be gay are you? when did you make your choice to be heterosexual, assuming you are, after examining all the options?

with a handle like bulldogger, I just assumed a few things...what a surprise

Crow Burger, when did you choose to be straight after reviewing all the options?

"Boy Scouts can be exclusive the second it stops receiving public money"---FamilyofFour

Baloney. No organization of especially children must comply to such demands as having to have even children declare themselves, or be declared, gay or not to qualify for public money.

You are extorting even children.

Science is so damb convenient. Damb that blasted science!

you don't want to "ruin" a good organization? You do realize that the BSA, like every other gathering of human beings on Earth, has had gay scoutmasters, gay boy scouts, gay administrative people, gay den mothers, etc... forced to deny their own genetic identity, since they began right?
Wow....on the contrary, allowing a person to participate freely in BSA without having to hide the fact that they may or may not be gay would only IMPROVE the character of the organization.
I can still remember without a seconds hesitation from 35 years ago when I was a scout:

Courteous
Kind
Obedient
Cheerful
Thrifty
Brave
Clean
Reverent

I dont think Intolerant, anti-gay or bigoted fits too well in there.

"If they had someone who could form coherent thoughts or grammatically correct sentences, people on the fence on the issue might be swayed in your direction."---Jason

Obviously the coherence is as over your head as the fence you are not on.

Btw: "...right wing people like you..."

Hate to disappoint you, but I'm not "right-wing."

"Do you all see a general theme here ?????"

I do, I do, it`s the troll AGIAN!!!!!

The topic here is - "Should the Boy Scouts Allow Gay Members?"

And some brilliant citizen posts this as a legitimate question/comment?

"Do you all see a general theme here ????? The problem is men.
Girl scouts don't have these issues !!!!! Sorry guy it is the truth"

While homosexual men and heterosexual boys are certainly the Subject, ...the "general theme" is political correctness and the pressure to allow homosexual men (gay boys do not exist) to serve openly in the scouts. They have done so for decades under cover, we can only imagine the consequences of what will happen IF they are allowed to serve "openly".

Whether they are permitted serve openly without condemnation or the majority of the troops decide to close rather than compromise, it doesn’t matter to them, the gay agenda will have succeeded. Either way will work toward eliminating a constant reminder that some still believe their conduct is wrong or even sinful.

>>THAT, my friends, is their goal.<<

The militant gay lobby pushing this change in BSA policy actually don’t give a rats a$$ about the Scouts; they are just using the Scouts as a vehicle to enforce their message, not just for "acceptance", but to eliminate any source of condemnation whatsoever.

Though the BSA has never condemned gays, and neither has Chick-fil-A; they feel that any organization that is for traditional marriage and hetero-sexual behavior is a condemnation against their lifestyle. So be it.

"Do you all see a general theme here ????? The problem is men.

Girl scouts don't have these issues !!!!!"

It's a matter of a window in time.

Males reach the height of their hormonal activity more or less at 18, prior to having reached the maturity required to handle it (and indeed protect or even insulate themselves from deviate influence) while females reach the height of their hormonal activity well afterwards.

Why?

Because far fewer males would survive hunting into maturer years than females nesting?

"The topic here is - 'Should the Boy Scouts Allow Gay Members?'...While homosexual men and heterosexual boys are certainly the Subject, ..."---Steve Terrence

Not quite. "Homosexual men" is not the "Subject." Homosexual men in the BSA (as in Scout Leaders) is an other B'Patch topics being commented on elsewhere.

"Members," as in Tenderfoot cubs to Eagle (as the word "members" only is meant to imply), is the subject.

"...the 'general theme' is political correctness and the pressure to allow homosexual men (gay boys do not exist) to serve openly in the scouts..."

Not under this topic heading. Of course "gay boys do not exist." The topic is the
premise of the question that gay boys do exist.

Thus its being "ludicrous."

Even flagrant, in a very real way, to preempt the truth of gay boys not existing.

This is not even a matter of "political correctness." It is a matter of morality; and not merely the morality, or immorality, of supposed homosexuality among boys, but also the immorality of posing a false premise as a fundamental truth.

To what end? Witting or not?

To merely excite readership?

To condition the readership to (despite the false premise) having boys be determined to be (supposedly) gay or not?

By who?

And how?

How can the very question of the subject, as wittingly or unwittingly premised, not be deemed predatory in itself?

where does it say that in the bible? "HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION TO HIM!" just curious, not that I give a crap , just curious. Oh, it doesn't ? Oh OK...
Thankfully that ridiculously controlling fairy tale doesn't rule the United States government.

"If the United States Military now sees fit to allow gay people, then certainly the Boy Scouts should follow."

The US military is a US government entity; the BSA is a private organization.
Boy-cot the Scouts if you wish (don’t take that literally now), but your flimsy logic is indefensible.

The BSA has a Christian foundation as I have already proven above. If you follow another spiritual path and want a scouting organization that follows those beliefs, then you’re free to start one.

Steve, so the Boy Scouts should stop acepting funds and resources from the governemnt, especially the U.S. military then.

"the Boy Scouts should stop acepting funds and resources from the governemnt, especially the U.S. military then."

"...funds and resources from the governemnt", ...and where do those resources come from?

Sorry, but those are my tax dollars not yours, yours are going to fund "Gay Pride" month all over the nation. Could you just imagine our tax dollars going toward Straight Pride month? You'd really have a tissy fit then. RE: publicadvocateusa.org

Again, as a self described "private Christian" organization (although many troops are supported by the Mormon Church), the Boy Scouts should stop accepting public funding and support, especially from the U.S. military. Then much of this would die down.

If you are so concerned about the BSA accepting any public funding, you should be contacting the US military or your congressman; not pursuing the BSA. If you really think this issue is even remotely about “accepting public funding” you’re deceiving yourself. See my post from 10:37am above.

"If the United States Military now sees fit to allow gay people, then certainly the Boy Scouts should follow."---Michael Goettee

Michael, your reasoning (or better stated lack of it) would then have guns in the hands of minors.

Have minors in the trenches also.

Which is what you are, in a way doing, when maintaing the false premise of any boy somehow having to have the capacity of being innately gay.

Subject to any determination of being gay or not also.

Do you have any regard for minors at all?

Even if you be one yourself?

"Steve, so the Boy Scouts should stop acepting funds and resources from the governemnt, especially the U.S. military then."---Tim

The government shouldn't be spending any taxpayer's money to fund anything that's not government.

Especially now.

Where in that top ten does homosexuality fall?

"Where in that top ten does homosexuality fall?"---m

Not that I am religious but:

After all that begatting don't you think honoring thy father and mother must have something to do with fathers and mothers who beget?

In your book, does not coveting thy neighbor's wife mean you must covet your neighbor's husband?

Catherine Anne - It appears to be that you have apparently chosen to ‘shun the Old Testament’, the last time I checked, Sunday in fact, it was still a valid part of the Word of God. I could give you a list of very applicable old testament verses that clearly address homosexuality, but you probably have a dismissive reply for each so I won’t bother wasting the time; the bottom line is that God calls homosexuality sin.

Since you only prefer the New Testament, here’s a verse for you;

“Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.” Look it up.

No one wants to “shun the homosexual”; I have a few gay friends, that’s not the point of this article or discussion. I have not read any comments that have suggested “that child molesters are overwhelming homosexual.” Regardless, what fathers like me ARE concerned about is whatever child molesters that are homosexual be kept out of the BSA. Do you have a proposal for doing this effectively?

Steve, I suppose you don't eat pork or any other unclean animal? I suppose your wife doesn't wear pants or hold any authority over any male. I suppose your wife has no contact with anyone and sleeps away from you while she is on her period. I suppose you don't do any business including going out, spending money or working on the sabbath? I suppose if you have children that you beat them if they're disobedient. I could go on but I won't.

m, Yours is the typical response from a person who wants to believe in a Supreme Being yet also wants to live life without being accountable to Him. Continue to ignore Him if you so desire, but He still longs to know you;

“Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands.”

"The righteous cry out, and the LORD hears them; he delivers them from all their troubles. The LORD is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit."

"He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true." He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life." He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son."

I totally agree with your observations; maybe not all but certainly more than a few would have those intentions; and thats a few too many.

Based on your previous comments smith I would not have presumed you to be gay. How do you reconcile this fact with your presentation of Isaiah 5:20?

Smith, you're not gay so quit lying. If you can't take part in a conversation without lying about yourself to try to make a certain group of people look bad then just move on. You are most definitely a Republican. You are most definitely NOT Gay.

Well said.

"A distinction needs to be..."---Sallie Forrester

Obviously people have been well regarded for being just good friends.

Even when banding together to get through life.

But where would Laurel and Hardy be nowadays?

To, together, even lease an apartment?

I'd suspect they'd have to get married.

Sallie.
Boy Scouts is not just "a group". It is a group that uses public facilities. This is where the issue becomes dicey.

JamesMichael makes the assertion that; "Boy Scouts is not just "a group". It is a group that uses public facilities. This is where the issue becomes dicey"

NONSENSE - ANY group can use publicly owned facilities by paying any applicable users fees. You can have a "gay group" reserve and use a public facility, and I guarantee you no heterosexual will be the slightest bit fazed by it and will NOT complain nor want to “join” your little group. We all pay property taxes and you have that right to meet in such a facility without interference or protest.

LIKEWISE – THE BSA has that same right to use public facilities without harassment, interference and protest by overly sensitive people like you that simply want to make a big deal of the fact that we simply do not approve of your lifestyle; and apparently that bugs the crap out of you.

The only thing “dicey” about this is your misguided attitude and warped opinion.

@Steve Tenace
Umm. Which of us is overly sensitive?

Mine: a modest statement asserting that the issue is dicey.
Yours: a childish rant characterized by hyperventilation and unwarranted attributions.

JamesMichael continues to whine, “Umm. Which of us is overly sensitive?
Mine: a modest statement asserting that the issue is dicey.
Yours: a childish rant characterized by hyperventilation and unwarranted attributions.”

Spoken by a true progressive using key liberal buzz words, I love it! ie; "childish rant" and "hyperventilation" - they love the latter one in particular. This is the typical Saul Alinsky approach, when you have nothing to refute the message with, attack the messenger.

Nice try - but sensible, rational people can see right through it.

pssst. Steve. You should grow up.
This matter is now closed.

James Michael now says ...."pssst. Steve. You should grow up. This matter is now closed"

Liberals hate it when they are boxed into a corner. I bet when he was a kid he would get mad at a playmate and say "Im taking my toys and going home!" with his little bottom lip puckered out - how adorable! What he needed as a kid was a swift kick in the a_ss by the friends he dissed; maybe he would have grown into a mature man by now. "...the matter is now closed" = p

You misread. Read thoughtfully, it reads"in Hell they lifted their eyes and discovered that it was populated with papists, prelates, preachermen and other fakes who make pretense for speaking the mind of the Almighty, and who hustle sin and pimp Jesus for base coin.

Read correctly... Thoughtfully... You will understand that those of us who are decent human beings will live an eternity in the Divine Presence freed, finally from the degenerate sleaze of Christianity.

Yeah....because it has worked so well for their straight, Caucasian, married pedophiles that are allowed to be in this group. The BSA is nothing more than a group of perverted, homophobic men, that get their rocks off by fondling little boys and sexually abusing them.

Crow Burger, let me guess, your a geneticist by trade? lol again, when did you determine your sexual orientation after reviewing all the options?

Stephen,
No, I'm not a geneticist (I am a plant pathologist which does include genetic studies). I don't think people "determine" their sexual orientation, except by way of choice. If a young man were to be raised in an Agoge today, would we blame him for being same-sex oriented? Would we think it strange if a group of people decided to live open and free without requiring a choice of sexual preference, or making marriage a prerequisite to procreation? The only thing your emotionally targeted question really asks is, "Why won't people accept me, let me influence others with my lifestyle, and allow me to procreate how I see fit?" The answer is: The law already allows it, so why seek social justice where none is needed?

Please explain how the loving bonds and shared lives between like-sexed partners destroys the family. And given that conventional marriage is already a complete and utter farce (divorce rates, "illegitimate" childbirths, adultery, etc.), please explain how it is that homosexuals, rather than heterosexuals, are responsible for this farce. Finally, explain how it is that virtually all homosexuals are the products of heterosexual homes.

We'll wait.

Why is the heart, open to deep and abiding differences among innocent children, a rotted heart?