Poll: Majority Of Americans Support B...

Poll: Majority Of Americans Support Boy Scouts Of America's Gay Ban

There are 61 comments on the On Top Magazine story from Dec 20, 2012, titled Poll: Majority Of Americans Support Boy Scouts Of America's Gay Ban. In it, On Top Magazine reports that:

A majority of Americans support the Boy Scouts of America's ban on gay leaders, a USA Today /Gallup poll has found.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at On Top Magazine.

Fitz

Roseville, MI

#30 Dec 20, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually we were just one vote away on the SCOTUS from having the BSA declared a quasi-public organization, which means they would have had to follow anti-discrimination laws.
For a supposed legal "expert", you have difficulty understanding that a 5-4 decision is NOT the same as a unanimous one. It's NOT the final answer for all time.
Again, all we need is one more liberal on the court and then the "fundamental constitutional right" will be that gays can't be discriminated against by the BSA.
Scalia & Kennedy will die eventually.......
All the boy scouts would need to do in such an eventuality suspend certain activity that would make them a fully private orgnization.

Indeed this seems to be were this could lead, ironically enough it has been the myraid of lawsuits that have prevented the Scouts from using public facilities that have helped push them twoards being mor of a private organization.

Why not just set up your own youth organization.

Do you really need every group in the world to endorse your feelings on every issue?
Fitz

Roseville, MI

#31 Dec 20, 2012
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, yeah, you "teach" a whole lot by kicking people out. Don't bother with guidance, education, mentoring... who needs it? Just EXPEL the "undesirables". That really teaches those who REMAIN a lot about how to treat others, too.
This only promotes a culture of exclusion and division. It does NOTHING to teach anyone about appropriate behavior. Just like with the military's previous ban on gay soldiers, it only teaches people to LIE and HIDE their true selves so they can be included. What a crappy lesson to teach.
<quoted text>
Another despicable policy. If the "Boy" Scouts are not actually for ALL boys, then they should change their name to something which more accurately reflects their prejudicial exclusion.
The scouts themselves who experience same-sex attraction need strong standards. It is not unusuall for young men to have homosexual tendancies and to experience a period of uncertainty. Rather than encouraging such tendancies they eed to learn self-control, resolve, chastity & forbearance. This is were the policy on no gay scoutmasters comes into play... the souts need to know that the adults practice wha they preach..

As far as only allowing theistic scouts, this goes to the heart of scouting and its understanding of citizenship and moral codes...indeed the Scout Oath proscribes "morally straight" (not just a sexual value) in its very language...it also talks of reverance to God.

I'm sure you would like the BSA to become something other than what they are. That itself can be properly labeled prejudicial & exclusionary. You shouldent run from such words but embrace them... honesty is the best policy (as the Scouts teach).

Perhaps you should consider founding your own organization that develops its own etho's amoung young men... as is your consitutional right to do so..
Fitz

Roseville, MI

#33 Dec 20, 2012
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
policy, which it is. They're shutting out the WRONG PEOPLE, which is evidenced by their shameful HIDDEN abuse files.
<quoted text>
The BSA is shutting out gay people who would never do this, but they are flinging their doors open wide to pedophiles.
.
The BSA is "flinging their doors open wide to pedophiles"????

When did they start this policy?? Thats strange thing to do??
Are you upset that they wont include homosexual pedophiles and endophiles??

A male non homosexual or bi-sexual endophile would be kind of stupid to go to the boy scouts...shouldent he go to the girl scouts?

As far as the BSA "hidden" abuse files? What do you expect? Why do you want them to violate the privacy of these poor victims of abuse by opening them up to the public and the press?

And if the victims and their families have not pressed charges (as many dont to spare the victim further truama & embarrasment) then the perpetrator is only allegedly a abuser and can sue the BSA for sladering his name. They dont have a crystal ball you know.. and they cant break the law just because of an allegation.

I dont think you really care about victims of abuse at all...I think it's plain you just dont like the BSA's position on homosexuality and want to use the abuse of children as a poltical weapon.

Shame on you.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#34 Dec 20, 2012
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
All the boy scouts would need to do in such an eventuality suspend certain activity that would make them a fully private orgnization.
Indeed this seems to be were this could lead, ironically enough it has been the myraid of lawsuits that have prevented the Scouts from using public facilities that have helped push them twoards being mor of a private organization.
Why not just set up your own youth organization.
Do you really need every group in the world to endorse your feelings on every issue?
IF they become a fully private organization they can do whatever they want. Until them we will continue to use the courts & public pressure and legislation and whatever means possible to fight their discriminatory practices.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#35 Dec 20, 2012
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
People are justified in being concerned not just with gay scoutmasters but with gay scouts themselves. Its not unusual for a young man with gay tendancies to elecit sexual contact with other younger/weaker or more suseptable fellow scouts. This is especially the case in organization like the Scouts thats regularly hold Jamboree's, overnight camping trips, and a multitude of activities were this behavior can easily occure.
The ban on gay scouts is simply one part of a multi-prong approach to discourage innapropriate sexual activity, and teach charachter and traditional virture to young men. It neither stops or start with the prohibition on gay scouts.
FYI - The Boy Scouts of America also prohibits atheist Scouts. You can be Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Christian or what not... but you cannot be a atheist Scout.
I've heard from adults that they as children experimented sexually with other scouts and that not all the scouts who messed around turned out to be gay. Sexual experimentation happens among adolescents whether it be male or female or heterosexual or homosexual activity and has been going on for decades or more. Deal with it! There are many, many straight guys who messed around with other guys growing up. Don't make a gay issue out of this.

It's strange they'll allow all these different beliefs and religions but won't allow non-beliefs such as atheism. Speaking of religion not all religions condemn homosexuality. I don't think Paganism does nor do Wiccans and I guess they'd be allowed in the scouts. What's up with them singling out gays and atheists? I understand girls not being allowed since it is the Boy Scouts. If I'm not mistaken the Girl Scouts allow lesbians. It seems America still considers lesbianism more acceptable than male homosexuality since lesbian sex sexually arouses heterosexual men.

Gay men are less likely to molest children than straight men. I know it's a private organization and they can exclude gay scout masters (adults) if they want but why must they discriminate against CHILDREN who are gay, perceived to be gay, or may be struggling with their sexuality/gender identity, etc.? Don't kids have enough to deal with without all the right wing bigotry from these evil, discriminating adults?

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#36 Dec 20, 2012
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, yeah, you "teach" a whole lot by kicking people out. Don't bother with guidance, education, mentoring... who needs it? Just EXPEL the "undesirables". That really teaches those who REMAIN a lot about how to treat others, too.
This only promotes a culture of exclusion and division. It does NOTHING to teach anyone about appropriate behavior. Just like with the military's previous ban on gay soldiers, it only teaches people to LIE and HIDE their true selves so they can be included. What a crappy lesson to teach.
<quoted text>
Another despicable policy. If the "Boy" Scouts are not actually for ALL boys, then they should change their name to something which more accurately reflects their prejudicial exclusion.
You mean a name like the CHRISTIAN (Southern Baptist), RELIGIOUS, CONSERVATIVE, SEXIST, RIGHT-WING REPUBLICAN, SOUTHERN WHITE HETEROSEXUAL BOY SCOUTS? LOL

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#38 Dec 20, 2012
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
You're fked up in the head, Fa$$ot. Only ones experimenting with other boys, are Queers. Fa$$ots molest boys, not straight men. You dumb A$$ ASSTROLL
It seems you fit the description more of a troll. Go ahead and call me names. You know I'm right and that's what has you on a rampage.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#40 Dec 21, 2012
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
EXACTLY.
They paint this horrible picture of gay people as the "villain", which simply allows the REAL perpetrators to disguise themselves as "heroes" and infiltrate their ranks. Happened the same way with the Roman Catholic Church, and now they're HIDING the consequences in exactly the same way.
And these people don't seem to realize, the poll may be asking how they feel about gay SCOUTMASTERS, but BSA policy doesn't limit this discrimination to scoutmasters, it targets gay SCOUTS as well.
I don't know who these people think they're protecting. Scouts? Not when the BSA is hiding the evidence of the damage TO those very same scouts. This only protects BSA administration, which makes sense because they would seek protection for themselves after being complicit in covering up criminal activity.
It's like that domestic partnership registry in Wisconsin.(The gay groups won, by the way.) WHAT purpose does all this rotting *bullshit* serve? How is it "protecting" anyone? How? How? How? The pro-gay are smart to demand again and again, How? How?

Thank you for your post. Nothing about anything the antigay do has a *whit* to do with "protecting" anyone; it's all vicious, vomited hatred. It reminds me of the conservatives who are against the gun bans being discussed, and are *SUDDENLY*,*SUDDENLY* concerned about violence in movies and video games.

They weren't concerned *until the very nanosecond the gun ban issue came up*; SUDDENLY they're all concerned about it.

Same concept with these antigay monsters who historically *NEVER* cared about any of this until gay issues came to the forefront.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#41 Dec 21, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because you're too stupid to figure out it's 2 separate issues.
Your creative writing has become pure fairy tales...

wanting to join and critiquing it are different things?

My goodness...

How about this, accept how often gays bash MARRIAGE while they insist a right to have one themselves...

I remember kids like you in high school...
you can cast it any way you want to, but I read it as, "its not that I wasn't invited to the party, I wouldn't go anyway that party will suck...
but those guys are a-holes for not letting me go..."

Can I have my beliefs and join your LGBT party?

NO?

consistency is not your virtue...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#42 Dec 21, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
IF they become a fully private organization they can do whatever they want. Until them we will continue to use the courts & public pressure and legislation and whatever means possible to fight their discriminatory practices.
who cares?

guess where you will do that?
In the parking lot!
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#43 Dec 21, 2012
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
All the boy scouts would need to do in such an eventuality suspend certain activity that would make them a fully private orgnization.
Indeed this seems to be were this could lead, ironically enough it has been the myraid of lawsuits that have prevented the Scouts from using public facilities that have helped push them twoards being mor of a private organization.
Why not just set up your own youth organization.
Do you really need every group in the world to endorse your feelings on every issue?
I have argued with the antigay multiple times that "feelings" are not involved in these issues; I think the antigay think of it as a "slam" to claim that the pro-gay are concerned about "feelings" where all of these issues are concerned.

Then I realized that antigay *insistence* that the pro-gay are acting upon feelings is actually *HELPING THE PRO-GAY*, because it perpetuates in the antigay the mistaken belief that they can argue issues *which are historical losers for them in courts of law*, that's all I'll say.

You're only helping them if you think this is about feelings. It's become very vehemently and angrily about what is *logical*, based in *logic*, and what is *fair*, based in *constitutional* issues. Open your eyes. If this were about feelings, by YOUR OWN LOGIC, progressives wouldn't be pursuing it; they'd be crying in a corner somewhere and calling you names. Isn't that what your ilk claim? Think about it: They're fighting nonstop, and there must be a reason for that that goes waaaayyyy beyond "feelings" in these matters.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#44 Dec 21, 2012
Fitz wrote:
The scouts themselves who experience same-sex attraction need strong standards.
Hm, I wonder where the Scouts expect them to get it when they KICK THESE KIDS OUT.
Fitz wrote:
It is not unusuall for young men to have homosexual tendancies and to experience a period of uncertainty.
And it's not unusually for people who grow up to be gay to have had heterosexual experiences, either. This doesn't speak to a person's orientation, and is irrelevant.
Fitz wrote:
Rather than encouraging such tendancies they eed to learn self-control, resolve, chastity & forbearance.
A person can be gay and learn all that. However, none of these words appear in the Scout's Oath, nor the Scout's Law. These may be values important to YOU, but it's not the duty of the BSA to teach them.
Fitz wrote:
This is were the policy on no gay scoutmasters comes into play... the souts need to know that the adults practice wha they preach..
A scout is supposed to be honorable and trustworthy, but these policies, JUST like the old military DADT, forces gay scouts to LIE and HIDE. This is NOT honorable behavior. They should be encouraged to be open and honest about who they are.

Many associated scouting groups from around the world include this tenet in their Scout's Oath: To be true to myself. Ironically, the Scouts here in the US do NOT include such a directive.
Fitz wrote:
As far as only allowing theistic scouts, this goes to the heart of scouting and its understanding of citizenship and moral codes...indeed the Scout Oath proscribes "morally straight" (not just a sexual value) in its very language...it also talks of reverance to God.
There's nothing especially "moral" about theism or religion. Punishing a person because they prefer evidentiary proof over supernaturalism is no more "moral" when the BSA does it than when the Bible promotes it.

There's also nothing about scouting that requires theism at it's "core". Scouting requires a passion for wilderness, a sense of civic responsibility, and a focus on discipline. There's no need for a belief in unprovable magic ghosts for any of that. If the Scouts don't want to include anyone except theists in their club, then it should say so in the title.
Fitz wrote:
I'm sure you would like the BSA to become something other than what they are. That itself can be properly labeled prejudicial & exclusionary.
Oh yeah, hoping that the Scouts were more open and tolerant is EXACTLY THE SAME as being prejudicial and exclusionary. Makes perfect sense.
Fitz wrote:
You shouldent run from such words but embrace them... honesty is the best policy (as the Scouts teach).
They don't "teach" that, they pay lip service to it. You don't teach honesty by hiding pedophiles, or by enacting policies which make people disguise their true selves.
Fitz wrote:
Perhaps you should consider founding your own organization that develops its own etho's amoung young men... as is your consitutional right to do so..
There are already plenty of other scouting groups that are far more open and enlightened than BSA administration. BSA should consider 21st century thinking if they wish to stay relevant.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#45 Dec 21, 2012
Fitz wrote:
The BSA is "flinging their doors open wide to pedophiles"????
When did they start this policy?? Thats strange thing to do??
It's a foolish and dangerous thing to do, based on deliberate ignorance. They started this policy when they decided that gay people made a convenient villain to point fingers at. They, and people like you, are always going to be vulnerable to pedophiles because you want "homosexual" to mean the same thing. But since it doesn't, you're all looking for enemies in the wrong places. The pedophiles know this, and happily take advantage of your distraction. While you're busy accusing the wrong people of crimes they didn't commit, you're oblivious to the people who use these policies to disguise themselves and march right in.
Fitz wrote:
Are you upset that they wont include homosexual pedophiles and endophiles??
They shouldn't include pedophiles of ANY orientation. Is there something about abuse on girls that you think is not as bad as abuse on boys?
Fitz wrote:
A male non homosexual or bi-sexual endophile would be kind of stupid to go to the boy scouts...shouldent he go to the girl scouts?
The reason you're stumbling through these questions is because trying to conflate "homosexuality" with "pedophilia" is a faulty premise.
Fitz wrote:
As far as the BSA "hidden" abuse files? What do you expect?
Transparency? Cooperation with the authorities? Protection of the children rather than the perpetrators? But, me and my crazy ideas.
Fitz wrote:
Why do you want them to violate the privacy of these poor victims of abuse by opening them up to the public and the press?
The public and the press might be unintended audiences, but I was thinking more along the lines of the police. I know, more crazy talk.
Fitz wrote:
And if the victims and their families have not pressed charges (as many dont to spare the victim further truama & embarrasment) then the perpetrator is only allegedly a abuser and can sue the BSA for sladering his name. They dont have a crystal ball you know.. and they cant break the law just because of an allegation.
The BSA has talked some of these families OUT of pressing charges, and don't fool yourself into thinking that the BSA was protecting anyone but themselves. In many cases, the families were told nothing. That's why these files are called HIDDEN.

It's unbelievable how willing you are to whitewash what's happened and absolve the BSA of all responsibility.
Fitz wrote:
I dont think you really care about victims of abuse at all...I think it's plain you just dont like the BSA's position on homosexuality and want to use the abuse of children as a poltical weapon.
Shame on you.
On ME??? I'm not the one who kept these files secret and hidden. Everything I say is to protect these children, both to allow them to be who they are (even if it doesn't fit the conformist environment of the BSA) and to protect them from REAL pedophiles that people like you insist on misidentifying.

But, just like the Roman Catholic Churches scandal/failure with this very same issue, there will always be blind loyalists who simply DON'T CARE that these organizations allowed this kind of abuse to continue for DECADES, and who just DON'T CARE that they deliberately hid and protected the criminals. I predict that you'll further not care when they get away with it all.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#46 Dec 21, 2012
equalityboy81 wrote:
You mean a name like the CHRISTIAN (Southern Baptist), RELIGIOUS, CONSERVATIVE, SEXIST, RIGHT-WING REPUBLICAN, SOUTHERN WHITE HETEROSEXUAL BOY SCOUTS? LOL
If they value honesty as much as they claim to (except now we know they don't), that would be a much more honest title.

They could also add a parenthetical subtitle:

The CRCSRWRSWHBSA

(who swears an oath of stewardship to protect wilderness lands, but then sells them off to real estate developers)

http://www.knowledgeplex.org/news/2979851.htm...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#47 Dec 21, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Your creative writing has become pure fairy tales...
wanting to join and critiquing it are different things?
My goodness...
How about this, accept how often gays bash MARRIAGE while they insist a right to have one themselves...
I remember kids like you in high school...
you can cast it any way you want to, but I read it as, "its not that I wasn't invited to the party, I wouldn't go anyway that party will suck...
but those guys are a-holes for not letting me go..."
Can I have my beliefs and join your LGBT party?
NO?
consistency is not your virtue...
No one is stopping you from joining your local LGBT organization. In fact, we encourage heteros to join because it opens people's closed minds once they see that LGBT individuals are real people.

Of course we all know you're too cowardly to join.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#48 Dec 21, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
who cares?
guess where you will do that?
In the parking lot!
And yet we are getting more and more businesses & organizations to drop their support for the Bigot Scouts of Amerikkka until they change their discriminatory policies.
Norris

Cambridge, MA

#49 Dec 23, 2012
Keep queers AWAY from boys !!!

Since: Dec 08

Toronto, ON, Canada

#50 Dec 23, 2012
Norris wrote:
Keep queers AWAY from boys !!!
Keep trolls away from boys!
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#51 Dec 24, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is stopping you from joining your local LGBT organization. In fact, we encourage heteros to join because it opens people's closed minds once they see that LGBT individuals are real people.
Of course we all know you're too cowardly to join.
I want them to discuss issues related to straights...
we are people too ya know...

and no, they will not talk about it...
even in bullying...
it has to be about gays...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#52 Dec 24, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet we are getting more and more businesses & organizations to drop their support for the Bigot Scouts of Amerikkka until they change their discriminatory policies.
right, we all know you want to destroy any group that wont have you...
meanwhile gays have groups just for gays...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 7 min June VanDerMark 12,678
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 15 min Big C 24,056
lgbt news 40 min Brandon 3
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 42 min tbird19482 44,128
News Trump's victory has unleashed a wave of same-se... 43 min Tootie 12
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr crucifiedguy 4,993
News Report says Chip and Joanna Gaines' church has ... 2 hr Inquisitor 13
News DeGeneres says her show is no place for anti-ga... 17 hr Alt Right Sucks 334
More from around the web