A recent report from a Boy Scout Council in Massachusetts stated that representatives from the Gay and Lesbian Caucus were successful in getting a local council to agree to a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in regard to the admission of homosexuals into scouting, to include scout leaders. This, presumably, as the report continued would allow the Scouts to admit homosexuals without violating their laws. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The report from the Boston Globe 8/21/2001 stated,
“One of the state’s largest Boy Scout councils has decided to adopt a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy that would allow gay scoutmasters to be affiliated without technically violating the national ban against them.
“The
board of the Massachusetts Minuteman Council - an umbrella
organization of 330 Scout troops and 18,000 boys in Greater Boston -
quietly and unanimously approved the bylaw on July 19. The policy bars
exclusion of anyone on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation, said
Brock Bigsby, Scout executive for the council.”
There is a problem here. The concept of
"sexual orientation" in an innate final sense doesn't exist.
There is much evidence in support of this fact; the most recently being the
Spitzer study from the American Psychiatric Association that
clearly documents that those inclined to homosexuality CAN change. The National Association of
Research and Therapy of Homosexuality also
supports this view. Militant homosexual advocates, to coerce society into
giving them special rights to make them comfortable with their vices, are using
this fallacious concept of “sexual orientation”. Parents aren't obliged
to do that, in particular, parents of Boy Scouts.
The
report maintains
“That
the carefully worded policy is consistent with the National Boy Scouts
Council's stance on homosexuality, since the doctrine would permit avowed
homosexuals to lead Scout troops - as long as they do not discuss their sexual
orientation.”
Are we to believe that “avowed homosexuals” are
going to lead Scout troops only on the condition that they don't discuss
their "sexual orientation?" Does that mean that they can
perform sodomy on scouts as long as they don't tell them before hand that they
are inclined to sexually perverse acts?
The
report continues with the observation
''Discussions
about sexual orientation do not have a place in Scouts. The Scouts will not
inquire into a person's sexual history and that person will not expose their
sexual orientation one way or the other.''
Let's get one thing clear here. The concept of right
and wrong DOES have a place in the
Scouts, else they stand for nothing. And nothing could be more wrong than
allowing someone who is homosexually inclined and proud of it to be affiliated
with the Scouts in any way. How can a Boy Scout be inclined to homosexuality? A
scout takes an oath to be “morally straight” which makes the concept of
“homosexual scouts” oxymoronic. And what about the well-documented correlation
between pedophilia and homosexuality? Are we obliged to put our scouts at risk
because a radical minority hell-bent on living self-destructive lifestyles
won’t be satisfied until they are confirmed in their vice, demanding acceptance
of their unnatural lifestyles by all aspects of society including the religious
community?
I have a simple question. If there is no connection between
pedophilia and homosexuality, why are articles promoting the former showing up
repeatedly in homosexual journals?
A
page of the official Boy Scouts of America Web site, titled ''In Support of
Values,'' states: ''We believe an avowed homosexual is not a
role model for the traditional moral values espoused in Scout Oath and Law, and
homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values we wish to instill.''
The report states that
“The
American Civil Liberties Union's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project said yesterday
that the Minuteman Council is perhaps the first to draft an antidiscrimination
policy within the framework of the Scouts' national bylaws. The ACLU group has
filed lawsuits charging the Scouts with discrimination and has been tracking
the organization's anti-homosexual policy.
''To
have a policy that takes sexual orientation off the table entirely instead of
making homosexuality seem like a dirty little secret is encouraging and
significant,'' said Ferrero. ''And it sounds like what the group has done is
going to be difficult for the National Boy Scouts to oppose.''
This is pure and simple hogwash! The Scouts most
certainly can easily oppose such coercion on the part of pro-homosexual
advocates for the very reasons of their oath.
The
chair for the Cambridge district of the Minutemen Council, said
“The
policy is true to the Boy Scouts' traditional values.
''What
we are saying is that the Boy Scouts is about embracing all children,'' said
Jillson. ''Through the scout oath you pledge to defend all people, and that
means discrimination is unacceptable.''
This is ludicrous. Boy Scouts do not embrace aberrant
behavior. Boy Scouts justly discriminate between right and wrong just as
their parents do who are concerned for their welfare.
As
an example of the continued obfuscation of this issue by the liberal press, the
report stated
“According
to the Boy Scouts' own internal polls, 30 percent of Scout parents do not
support excluding homosexuals. “
If my arithmetic is correct, that means that 70 percent of
Scout parents have not lost their collective sanity.
What we’re witnessing is a back door attempt to subvert the
very moral foundation of the Boy Scouts of America through homosexual
agitprop. How can parents, who out of
course of fulfilling their responsibilities to their children by justly
discriminating between right and wrong behavior, feel comfortable with a policy
that would allow publicly avowed homosexual advocates and/or homosexuals into
scouting on the premise that they would not condone and/or perform homosexual
acts?
The very real agenda of such advocates was shown on Fox’s
O’Reilly news show of 8/1/01 when a representative from the Massachusetts gay
and lesbian caucus argued that “Don’t ask, don’t tell” also meant that the
scouts can’t talk about heterosexual relationships leading to marriage, and their
leaders couldn’t wear wedding rings, implying that somehow, such talk would
offend the homosexual membership. In
short, what he was advocating was that “Don’t ask, don’t tell” not only applied
to the unnatural acts of homosexuals that have been historically condemned by
the vast majority of faith traditions, but also to natural marriage acts that
aren’t “equally” condemned, a fact that offends homosexuals because “marriage”
is not reserved for them, no matter that the concept of “homosexual marriage” is
oxymoronic since there is this slight problem with propagation of the
species. This kind of an attitude means
that the portion of the Scout Handbook on Sexual Responsibility (Chapter 14,
pp. 376-378) with the accent on “responsibility” will have to be rewritten. The aforementioned homosexual advocate had
no problems referring to homosexuals as parents when asked by O’Reilly why he
couldn’t understand the concerns of parents in regard to the safety of their
children. This is completely counter to
what is in the Scout Handbook, which rightfully recognizes the natural context,
the ONLY context of marriage, between a man and a woman. What about the Handbook section that deals
with responsibility to your beliefs where the scouts are told that “sex should
take place only between people who are married to each other” with abstinence
until marriage being the priority concern in order to “give a child a close,
loving family in which to grow” with the clear inference that procreation is a
function of “natural” monogamous marriage with a person of the opposite
sex? What about the section that deals
with a scout’s responsibility to himself where he’s told that “An understanding
of ‘wholesome’ sexual behavior can bring lifelong happiness with
irresponsibility or ignorance causing a lifetime of regret? What could be more
irresponsible than the de facto promotion of homosexuality by such misguided
policies such as “Don’t ask, don’t tell” given the evidence coming from many
professional sources to include the Center for Disease Control that
homosexual behavior is the most risky because of the unnatural acts involved
and its widely documented aspect of promiscuity where monogamous relationships
are not the norm?
These are questions from responsible parents, recognizing that
Scouts put a premium on telling the truth, that Boy Scout councils
contemplating only “technical” adherence to their rules are required to answer.
“Don’t ask, don’t tell” travels only one road, that of de
facto homosexual advocacy. What is
required for the welfare of all concerned, not the least of which is a group of
people being told the heinous lie that their aberrant unnatural behavior is
physically and psychologically OK in total ignorance of the mountain of
evidence to the contrary, not to mention the most serious spiritual
consequences as fully recognized in the Scout Oath emphasizing “doing my best
to do my duty to God,” first and foremost, is a “Please ask, please tell”
policy. You don’t “help other people”
by lying to them, another part of the Scout Oath.