"I think that All people should be able to participate in Scouting."
Now, previously you have argued that this meant Gay people should be Scoutmasters, arguing that since scoutmasters are participants, participate must include being scoutmaster. But using your OWN words from the referenced post:
I would think you mean that all people should join, attend functions of, volunteer, or in some other fashion take part in scouting.
Which is exactly how I interpret Romney's statement, until some more definitive statement is made.
There are a lot of people who can participate in the presidential elections, but who are not allowed to be President. People under 35, people not born in America, people who have already been President more than 6 years.
Likewise, you could allow people to participate in scouting without allowing them to be scout leaders. In fact, there are a lot of people who can participate in scouts, but not be scout leaders -- like those who don't have a background check on file, or whose background check doesn't pass muster.
I also thought women could not be scoutmasters, but someone told me I was wrong about that. I don't know. But I do know women can join scouting and be volunteers and serve on the committee.
The funny thing is, for all of your insistance on forcing an opinion on Romney that he has not stated himself, nobody has ever thought it interesting enough to actually ASK Romney directly what he thinks about the issue. In my opinion, that indicates that the answer they expect wouldn't be interesting -- which means the people who have access to Romney assume he opposes Gay scoutmasters.
I don't know if you ever bothered to send him or his campaign an e-mail asking him for his view. Or to any of the talk show hosts asking them to ask him his view. That would be a much better approach than claiming he said things he never actually said.
“Which is exactly how I interpret Romney’s statement, until some more definitive statement is made.”
No it isn’t. You falsely insist that it means all possible activities EXCEPT those that would obviously be embarrassing and damaging to his political standing.
With no substantive basis whatsoever, you insist that the words “all” and “participate” mean any and all possible things EXCEPT an adult male involved in homosexual behavior serving as a Scoutmaster.
That is, you laughably claim that his words meant every possible configuration of individuals and activities EXCEPT the one precise thing that has for over a decade been the focal point of the issue. (Which is one reason, frankly, I keep jabbing you on it. It’s nothing if not astonishingly amusing, the lengths to which you go to deny the plain and obvious meaning of English words.)
If Romney was opposed to homosexual Scoutmasters, anybody with common sense knows that he’d have simply said so long ago. The issue has dogged him since 1994, by Brownback last year, by Gov. Perry this year, and it will continue to dog him until he does in fact clearly express his view, which he has studiously run from doing.
Ask him the simple question: “Governor, do you support allowing adult males involved in the homosexual lifestyle to serve as Scoutmasters?”
In Charles’ fantasy world, Romney would quickly say he doesn’t if only someone would just ask him.
But in fact, when he has been asked, he follows the Romney pattern of obfuscation:
“I support the right of the Boy Scouts to make that decision.” (1994)
Fine, Governor, but what is YOUR view on the question?
“I think each local Scout council should decide the issue.”
(2007)
Great, Governor, but one more time, do YOU think homosexual adults should serve as Scoutmasters?
So far...crickets.
Seems simple enough, Charles. As a prominent and regular Romney defender here on FR and perhaps elsewhere, no one should be more capable of getting a straight answer from Romney on this question than you, Charles.
So, as you’ve suggested, Charles, please quickly e-mail Gov. Romney and ask him for a simple “yes” or “no” answer to the question of whether he believes homosexual adults should serve as Scoutmasters...whether the supports or opposes the current universal nationwide ban by the BSA on adult males openly involved in homosexual behavior serving in troop leadership positions.
Then please immediately post his response here on FR, and if you’re right, PROVE ME WRONG!
Good luck...
We’ll all be waiting...til 2012.
“...you could allow people to participate in scouting without allowing them to be scout leaders. In fact, there are a lot of people who can participate in scouts...I do know women can join scouting and be volunteers and serve on the committee.”
What a load of unmitigated horse manure. Do you really think this kind of crap somehow makes Romney’s statement mean anything less than what he said? The man wants the Boy Scouts to let homosexuals be involved in their organization. Period. Doesn’t matter whether he meant as janitors, waiters or scoutmasters. A conservative would have said something like “A private organization ought to have the right to decide for itself who affiliates with it.”
Romney didn’t.