Posted on 01/09/2008 10:42:30 PM PST by Coleus
“I won’t impose my personal views upon others’.
Funny how that quote isn’t being mentioned from this.
He did say they should be let in; AND he said that if the Boy Scouts decide not to let them in, that’s their right.
I understand the distinction between the two. Mitt was saying the same thing he was saying on the abortion issue — people/organizations can make their own decisions, even if he’d do something different. I get it.
I agree with your two points, but not your summary. I do not see him saying that he believes their view is wrong. He did not address gays that are public in their 'sexuality' which is what the Boy Scout 'exclusions' address.
Got it .... my reply missed it I admit!! ;-)
OR ... one would have to 'pre-screen' anyone that is asking to be a leader with a specific questionnaire about their sexuality, which in all fairness (with kids in mind) should include more than just homosexual leanings. ... I don't think the Boy Scouts have such a 'screening' otherwise I am sure that ACLU would have made it known. Are you suggesting that they should get one?
Regardless, you seem to think that the only way to defend Mitt from seeming pro-gay is to accuse him of being a Clintonian parser. Go figure.
I don't see any 'parsing' at all going on, other than my NOT reading into what others are in this video. I think more 'parsing' is being done by people who want to find fault with Romney here.
But really, the "openly gay" thing simply means that they ARE walking out of a shower with a gay dude sitting there -- they just don't know it. Personally, if I was actually concerned with a gay person looking at me, I would think you would want to know WHO is gay so you know who not to walk in front of.
And I really would think that knowing your head might get blown off in the next 2 seconds would be worse than the possibility that the guy you are walking in front of is fantasizing about, well, the same thing figuratively.
But imagine how women must feel then, when they are walking around, KNOWING that the men they are walking by are ogling them sexually all the time in an unwanted way.
Read what Huckabee had to say to LULAC compared to what he now says his position is on illegal immigration.
http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/06/30/News/323746.html
Since you seem like you’ve given a lot of thought to the 2nd amendment issue, I wanted to run an argument by you that I heard for the first time the other day and couldn’t really answer.
It refers the right of “the people” to bear arms, not the right of each person. You might think that’s a distinction without a difference, but the guy I talked to noted that “We the people,” for instance, was obviously referring to what representatives did on behalf of the whole people — not to the unanimous and individual agreement of every single person. In other words, he was saying the 2nd amendment is a collective right — just like many things done by “the people” are done collectively.
The guy then put this argument in the context of the “well-regulated militia” line, and I honestly didn’t know how to answer.
What do you think?
“I don’t think the Boy Scouts have such a ‘screening’ otherwise I am sure that ACLU would have made it known. Are you suggesting that they should get one?”
I haven’t said anything about my own views on the matter. I’m talking about how to interpret what Romney said. And no, he did not favor a screen; he clearly favored there being no consideration of sexual orienation at all, at any time — even as he argued for the right of the boy scouts to make up its own mind.
A person who openly admitted that they have changed their views on abortion policy, shown when he had a different view on abortion policy.
What’s the controversy here?
“...in fact Romney said he supported the right of the Boy Scouts to make up their own rules.”
Charles, why the continued half-truths?
Romney did say he supports the right of the Scouts to set their own policy. That’s like me saying I support Mitt Romney’s right to run for prez. Doesn’t mean I support his candidacy.
Similarly, in the very next sentence, Romney said he personally believes that homosexuals should be free to participate in Scouting. “All people,” he said, including boys and adults, “regardless of their sexual orientation.”
For those with the impenetrable Romney blind spot (like you), the really big clue that Romney’s comments were in opposition to the Scout policy was the fact that the BSA’s national spokesman rebuked him immediately thereafter in the Boston Globe. And the Scouts rarely publicly rebuke anybody.
In 2007, Romney says that each local Scout council should decide whether to allow homosexual Scouts and Scoutmasters.
Which again, is at odds with the existing national policy that applies to all Scout troops nationally. As he did in 1994, Romney still today opposes the existing policy.
Anyone who says otherwise is either intentionally trying to deceive or is incapable of reading or comprehending the English language. I do admit that with a candidate who debates the meaning of common words such as “saw,” you have to watch his use of the language very, very closely.
But I’m confident you’re up to it.
Actually, the half-truths are being told by those who falsely claim that Romney wanted to force the boy scouts to accept gay scoutmasters.
That’s why I pointed out that Romney in fact didn’t want to force them to do ANYTHING, and instead stood up for their right to make their own rules, which was something that was very much an important issue, with people trying to force them to change their policy.
What his personal opinion was is irrelevant to the charge that he would force those views. I’ve NEVER said he didn’t support gays participating in scouts.
The 2nd half-truth was the assertion that romney singled out support for gay scoutmasters. In fact, Romney never MENTIONED scoutmasters, and since “participation” does not imply “leadership” or “authority”, there is no evidence for the claim he supported, much less wanted to FORCE, the scouts to take gay scoutmasters.
So Romney personally believes gays can be involved in scouts, but won’t force his opinion on them, and instead will support their right to do what they think is right — which I believe is what you want, which is no gays.
But Fred Thompson personally believes abortion is wrong, but won’t force his opinion on states, and instead will support the right of the states to kill as many babies as they want — which I believe is in direct opposition to want you want, which is to end the genocide.
“Actually, the half-truths are being told by those who falsely claim that Romney wanted to force the boy scouts to accept gay scoutmasters.”
Please cite an example of someone who’s claimed this.
Romney simply said HE believes the Scouts should allow “all people” — adults and boys — to be involved in Scouting, including those who engage in homosexual behavior. He personally disagrees with the Scout policy and was rebuked by the Scouts as a result.
Again, please cite an example of someone saying Romney wanted to force the Scouts to change their policy.
Charles, thank you for finally admitting that Romney support gays participating in scouts. That’s been the point all along.
Please stop the dissembling debate about whether Romney specifically mentioned adults or the word “Scoutmasters,” which is comparable to Romney debating the definition of the word “saw” and Clinton debating what the definition of the word “is” is.
Romney said “ALL people,” which includes adults as well as boys, unless you’re using a different dictionary than the rest of the human race.
The entire controversy which led to the question raised in the Kennedy debate was a lawsuit involving a New Jersey man openly involved in homosexual behavior who sued the Scouts because he wasn’t allowed to serve as an adult leader.
It’s simply disingenuous, and painfully so (for you), to try to argue that Romney didn’t know what the issue was, didn’t know what the word “all” means, and you somehow magically devine that when he used that word, he WASN’T referring to adult leaders even though that was the context of the entire question.
Well, the word “support” is much different from “should”. Romney said he supported allowing gays in the boy scouts, not that they SHOULD allow gays in the boy scout. The first is a personal preference, the second is a call to action.
Several people have said he called them to action by using the term “should” when he did not.
The scouts issued a response in opposition because Romney was on the board, and they wanted to ensure that Romney’s statement of support was not taken as the opinion of the board. I think Romney should have made that more clear, and I understand why they were unhappy with his statements.
I never said I was happy with them, I argued that he wasn’t trying to get them to change their policy, much less force them to, and much less forcing them to have gay scoutmasters.
This topic has been discussed multiple times a week for the last six months, and I’m not going to go back through all the discussions to find places where people said he wanted to make them accept gay scoutmasters. If you want to therefore believe I’m wrong, go ahead, it makes no difference to me.
My point was that people keep mischaracterising it, and your own use of an active command vs the “support for” verbage illustrates that point.
And I think the post after yours illustrates the false claims about scoutmasters.
What an amazing obscure non-issue.
Romney says the Boy Scouts should have the right to make their own decision and opposes the ACLUs attempt to subvert their right. That’s all you need to know.
Romney spent 10 years on the Boy Scouts national board and did nothing to change their policy.
The debate tonight talked about big issues like Iran, terrorism, taxes, economy, immigration, ... big issues. And this is a flyspeck on a pimple on a flea of an issue.
I’ve never said he didn’t, so you are once again wrong in your statement that I am “finally admitting”.
He says so right on a video, he made the statement publicly, so obviously he isn’t trying to hide it either.
It is clear that Mitt Romney is comfortable in the public arena with gay peopole. He is not scared of them, he does not fear them, and he seems to be quite accepting of them as fellow human beings.
Further, I’ve several times expressed my opinion that I would support gays being involved in scouts, but NOT in positions of authority — and I would reject children who were active sexually, either gay or hetorosexual, under the “morally straight” clause. I believe homosexual acts are a sin, but no more a sin than sex outside of marriage.
I understand the rationale behind the ban on gays in scouts, and fully support their right to make their own rules. I’ve defended the ban on my own blog, as well as fighting for the ban on open gays in the military. But with the caveats I gave above, neither is of great importance to me.
The reason I support allowing gay parents to participate is that I think boy scouts are a tremendously positive organization for the boys, and for our country. I would hate to see a child miss out on what scouts will teach simply because the parent isn’t allowed to be involved.
Now, going back to your argument, your argument about “is” is is exactly backwards, and has been used exactly backwards by more than one Mitt-basher. The point of “is” is is that words actually have common meanings, and to try to twist them around for your advantage in a way that distorts their meaning is sleazy.
In this case, Romney NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT SCOUTMASTERS. The word “scoutmaster” is easy to say. The person asking the question could have said “scoutmaster”, and romney could have said “scoutmaster”. Romney has had this position regarding gays and the boy scouts since 1994, which means people have had 13 years to ask him, and he’s had 13 years to say, if he actually supports gay scoutmasters.
But instead, his detractors insist on taking an answer where he took great pains NOT TO SAY scoutmasters, and pretend that the word “participate” actually means “be the adult leader”.
So pardon me for noting that THAT is clintonesque, insisting the the word “participate” means “lead”. See, participate does NOT EQUATE TO lead, and for you to insist it does is like Clinton arguing about what “is” is.
I am involved in scouts, and while I originally thought his term “members” meant kids after thinking about it (way back months ago when we discussed this) I agree he included adults. But I also KNOW that adults participate in scouts in many ways, and only a few are as “leaders”, and only one is “scoutmaster”.
And if the boy scouts decided to allow gay parents to join as adult participants, not in positions of authority, I would support them — although I also support their action in not doing so, as I think in the end I trust the scout leaders to have a better idea of what is best for the organization.
Your setting a “context” for the question only underscores the point that Romney specifically did NOT say “leader” or “scoutmaster”. If Romney thought they guy should win his suit, KNOWING the suit, Romney could have easily said so in his debate.
Romney willingly offered his opinion on gays participating, so it’s clear he wasn’t worried about expressing his opinion. So it’s clear his OPINION was NOT that the guy should win his suit (because Romney said he supported the rights of the scouts to make their own rules), and it’s clear he did NOT think the guy should be a leader (because if he DID, he could easily have used the term, which he did not).
HUckster is a bigger flipflopper than any other candidate. He’s done a 180 on immigration, he’s run away from his tax-hiking record as Governor, and in many cases, just has made it up as he went along on the campaign trail, changing positions as needed.
The funniest flipflop exchange is this one:
POWERS: “And another issue that’s come up is that you had previously been lobbying President Bush to lift the embargo on Cuba. And then in a recent debate said the opposite. What changed?”
HUCKABEE: “What changed was I’m running for president.”
It was not disengenous, because I never argued it. Romney clearly knew the issue, knew exactly what he meant when he said all people. What is disengenous is for you to assert that when Romney said "participate", knowing that the context was a guy suying for leadership, that Romney ACTUALLY meant "leadership", when the term "participate" is a completely different word than "leadership". If Romney had said he supported gay scoutmasters, I wouldn't argue he didn't, and I would disagree with him, although I doubt it would change my support for him since he has said he supports their right to make their own rules. So if you want to find some time in the last 13 years when Romney said "I support gay scoutmasters", go ahead and post it. But the only thing I've seen is the single youtube part of the debate, and Romney said "participate", not "lead". And no matter how much you try to argue otherwise, I know you can't show me a dictionary that says "participate" means "lead".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.