If the vote was really ‘lopsided’ and the delegates were proportionately representative of the BSA, then I reckon it isn’t a good sign at all. I mean it’s the boy scouts. I would think that most bothering with it at all would be tend to be on the fairly conservative side of things and have common sense, but maybe I’m wrong about that.
It seems to me it is reasonable to have concerns about 15-17 year old boys being in charge of younger kids of a gender that they are attracted to. It would be the same concern if the girl scouts allowed older boys to be in charge of younger girls. But since it involves gays, it’s like that argument isn’t even a factor or something.
Freegards
It’s a very big picture issue.
The girl Scouts wimped out 20 years ago when they joined with Planned Parenthood.
be in any way a good organization as such, and so they are not. They can give it up or die a slow death, but teaching girls to be women cannot include teaching them to hate motherhood.
As for the BSA, the organization was formed to be a flagship for formation of boys. Teaching them to not ave respect for chastity is completely counter to that and it is, the lack of chastity in men and boys, probably the largest contributing factor in what is wrong with our failing culture.
the BSA takeover is simply meant to discourage and demoralize.
The arguments and logical wrestling of how can this be reconciled are merely ways to minimize and trivialize this horrific situation.
the only moral wrestling to be done is how can former boy scouts allow this. Are they wimpy or morally challenged, wanting to keep their right to be unchaste.
But the bombardment of the image of the homosexual act on our children is an offense that cries out to god for a response.
The French have it right. Where are the men on this?