You falsely insist that it means all possible activities EXCEPT those that would obviously be embarrassing and damaging to his political standing.
This needed it's own post. First, at the time he was asked the question, it would hardly have damaged him to answer in any fashion he wanted. He was already on record as being "better" for gay rights than his opponent.
In fact, my OPINION is that the reason he answered as he did was that he DID NOT think gays should be scoutmasters, but did not want to sound like he was gay-bashing. Which is the OPPOSITE of your opinion that he WANTED gays to be scoutmasters but wanted to be SEEN as being against it. My opinion is the more likely, given his courting of the gay vote.
But further, I've NEVER argued that "all people should participate" PRECLUDED gays being scoutmasters. I've only argued that it does not "REQUIRE" gays to be scoutmasters -- which is YOUR argument.
Further, I certainly did NOT insist it meant "all possible activities". I have no idea what specific levels of participation he would have supported for different people. There already ARE different levels of participation for different people, but he was never asked to propose a detailed policy.
His statement is clear, but ambiguous. He certainly felt that gay people should have some level of participation -- he felt that ALL people should have some level of participation. If you wish to OPINE that he would allow gay scoutmasters, you are going beyond his statement -- and to insist his statement REQUIRES gay scoutmasters is clearly reading beyond the truth of the statement.
Charles, I gotta admit it that I love watching you twist yourself into a pretzel.
What your silly reasoning suggests, using your Catholic church analogy, is that if Romney said: “all people should be allowed to participate in the Catholic church..”
You’d insist that he’d be saying NO ONE could be pope.
For those who haven’t read the thousand times I’ve had to previously correct your falsification of the reocrd:
Romney in 1994 was asked if he objected to the Boy Scouts policy specifically prohibiting homosexual Scouts or Scoutmasters.
In the precise context of being asked about that prohibition, Romney said: “I believe all people should be allowed to participate in Scouting regardless of sexual orientation.”
Which for users of the English language, requires no translation from me.
For those who speak whatever language Charles uses, however, Charles will provide you a 500-word (or longer) translation insisting that Romney was not actually speaking about the BSA ban on which he was specifically questioned and thus his plain English words cannot possibly be interpreted to indicate any personal disagreement with the Scout policy (even though the BSA clearly does NOT believe that “all people should be allowed to participate in Scouting regardless of sexual orientation.”)
I note too Charles’ light-speed rush to retreat from the suggestion that he as a Romney supporter and defender might actually get a direct answer to the question only he (Charles) believes has not yet been asked (and clearly answered).
Come on, Chuck. Don’t give up so easily. If you’re right that Romney would clearly and directly answer the question if somebody somewhere would just give the poor guy a chance, then you’re only one quick ask and answer away from being able to definitively PROVE ME WRONG once and for all.
Please at least try. I’m starting to feel sorry for you.