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.
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.
No, because that would be an illogical inference from the statement, just as your inference that all people can be pope is illogical.
"All people should be able to participate regardless of sexual orientation" in no way logically infers "all people should be allowed to be scoutmasters regardless of sexual orientation".
Any more than "all people should be able to participate in the Catholic Church regardless of gender" infers logically that "all people should be allowed to be priests regardless of gender".
BTW: Romney in 1994 was asked if he objected to the Boy Scouts policy specifically prohibiting homosexual Scouts or Scoutmasters.
Is a false statement of the question. The actual question asked never mentioned Scout masters. Once again, you are putting words into the conversation that did not exist in the original.
Here is the actual question:
"Mr. Romney, you say you're a moderate on social issues. One who will defend abortion rights, equal rights for women, for blacks, and for gays. In fact you say you will do more to promote gay rights than Senator Kennedy. You also sit on the national executive board of the Boy Scouts of America, which has an exclusionary policy banning gay members. Do you support that policy, and if not have you ever done anything as a board member to oppose it?"
Note well -- the question was about GAY MEMBERS, not GAY LEADERS. And Romney's answer was that he personally believed gays should be allowed to "participate", but that he respected the right of the scouts to make their own rules.
It is true that you are not the first to mischaracterize the question as pertaining to LEADERS. But the question was clear, and the answer taken in context of the question is clear.
You have stated falsely that Romney said he supported gay scout masters. And you also have stated falsely that the question asked him about gay scoutmasters.
I have shown the question above which proves that the question did NOT mention scout masters or leaders. And you have provided his answer which says nothing about scout masters or leaders.
You are left with your "inference" that participation MUST include being Scoutmaster, and that "all" means that ALL PARTICIPANTS must be allowed to be SCOUTMASTERS. That is an improper translation of the words being used. I have shown that with analogies, and your responses to those analogies have been illogical, suggesting as you did that the opposite of "ALL" is "NONE", when in fact the logical opposite of "ALL" is "NOT SOME".
The truly funny thing is that while I don't believe Romney supports gay scoutmasters, it wouldn't matter if he did -- so long as he supported the right of scouts to make their own rules. My argument is with your false characterization of his answer, and in fact your occasional penchant for attributing actual WORDS to Romney that he never said.
As I said before, his answer does not preclude the possibility of such support. But it is much more likely that his answer was meant to hide his opposition, since he was trying to appeal to the gay community -- rather than your suggestion he was trying to hide his SUPPORT for gay scoutmasters to not lose some "base" that was not his in 1994.
So on the question, on his answer, on the rational interpretation of the phrase, on the application of logical constructs, and on the likely political equation of 1994, your insistance that Romney committed to supporting gay scoutmasters in 1994 is both false in fact, and likely incorrect in inference.
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've never said that his statement in 1994 was in keeping with BSA policy. In fact, I've clearly stated previously that his statement was in opposition to the BSA policy of the time, and acknowledged that he was criticized by one member of the board for making this statement while he sat on the board.
In fact, I mentioned that just a couple of posts ago.
So I don't appreciate your misrepresentation of my position, as I certainly have used enough words to make it clear.