I don't know how you can be so ignorant about this issue.
This was a huge hot button topic for the better part of a decade and Mitt clearly stated that he thought gays should be allowed to be troop leaders. The Boy Scouts were under heavy pressure at the time and they had to go to the Supreme Court defending their policy of excluding gays as troop leaders. Scout masters are participants; that's what the Scout policy was about, that's what the whole issue was about.
Why you would pretend it was anything other is beyond my understanding. Maybe you're really young and weren't following the news in the 90's? Maybe you are delusional? I don't know. But to continue to deny long-establish facts is bizarre. Go google Mitt boy scouts gay, read up on it, and then come back and tell me how dumb you are.
Obviously the other FReeper was wrong about the executive board thing.
Again, I will not discuss anything beyond the specific charge of the original poster, and my specific response.
You are appealing beyond the words of the question and answer to set up a “context” in which you wish to interpret those words. I will not discuss whether your context and interpretation has any merit, as it has no bearing on the original poster’s claim and my response to it.
I am neither being “ignorant” about the issue, or misrepresenting anything. I have clearly laid out the timeline of this subthread, and why the debate question and answer in fact disprove the original assertion.
If you have a reference to Romney saying he wanted to force Gay Scoutmasters in the Boy Scouts, produce it. Don’t just wave your hands around and say “everybody knows it”.
All scout masters are participants. But only a few participants are scout masters. ROmney’s quote does NOT specifically address leadership. There may be quotes that do, but this isn’t one.
I appreciate that you have a larger scope of contention, but I’m not making assertions in that larger scope, nor am I going to debate you on it. This one quote does NOT provide evidence of the original claim nor does it directly address leadership.
That was all I asserted (other than my mistaken focus on “membership” being “boys” which I have said was a mistake on my part).
I hope you see the difference between support for a change in policy, and forcing a change in policy. I know a lot of people who fully support the BSA policy, and I know a few who fully support BSA’s right to have the policy but personally wish they would change the policy.