Posted on 05/19/2003 6:01:32 AM PDT by SJackson
It’s happening again, another badly misguided local United Way chapter banning any UWA funds from going to the Boy Scouts groups because they won’t allow homosexuals to be scout masters – a constitutional right assured the Boy Scouts of America by no less than the United States Supreme Court.
Incredibly, at a time when critics are attacking Roman Catholic dioceses in the U.S. for allowing gay priests to have access to teenage boys, thus exposing them to the strong possibility of molestation, others are demanding that gay scout leaders be allowed the same kind of risky access to teenage boy scouts.
Since the Supreme Court ruled in June 2000 that the national Boy Scouts of America (BSA) organization did not have to accept homosexuals because it is a private organization, about 50 local United Way chapters, including Seattle and San Francisco, have gutlessly surrendered to pressure from gay groups and stopped contributing to them, according to CBS News.
Now comes the Miami-Dade United Way (UW) chapter which says it will no longer give nearly a half-million dollars a year to the local chapter of the BSA after June, because the scouts won’t provide some asinine be-nice-to-gays-they’re-normal-just-like-us "sensitivity" training program for its leaders.
According to an Associated Press report, the local UW's board of directors voted unanimously to discontinue the annual $480,000 grant - about 20 percent of the Scouts’ budget. Most of that money goes to programs in the area's poorer communities, the AP reported.
"It's a serious blow to the council's ability to deliver Scouting programs," scout council spokesman Jeff Herrmann told the AP.
The local UW claims it made its decision because the Boy Scouts reneged on an alleged 2001 pledge to put into effect training programs to help Scout leaders to be "sensitive" in dealing with kids who have trouble coping with sexuality, a pledge to which Herrmann flatly denies the scouts ever agreed.
"Sex education and sexual orientation are not part of our program and we're unwilling to make them part of our program," he told AP.
The Miami-Dade UW is the latest to cut off the Boy Scouts in Florida. The UWs of Broward and Palm Beach County stopped allocating funds to Boy Scout programs about two years ago.
Their actions provoked a firestorm of protests and cost both United Way chapters dearly. When the United Way of Broward stopped giving funds to the Boy Scouts in 2001, one couple donated $200,000 to the South Florida Council, which oversees scouting programs in Miami-Dade, Broward and Monroe counties. The Palm Beach County UW says it has lost about $500,000 in donations after it stopped giving the Gulf Stream Council of Boy Scouts money from the United Way general fund.
Good! Americans shouldn’t put up with these threats to the welfare of young scouts. We can start by making direct contributions to the Boy Scouts along with other groups when our local UWAs cravenly surrender to homosexual pressures and cut funding for the scouts, and we should boycott the United Way chapter and urge others to do the same.
Companies should inform United Way they will not give if UW insists on getting involved in such social engineering practices. If your employer has a UW drive, don’t be afraid to ask if they support the Boy Scouts. Ask before you give a cent.
We must understand that gay groups are attempting to undermine the decision of the United States Supreme Court. Certain UW chapters are being foolish enough to listen to them. They cannot be allowed to succeed.
America’s war against terrorism is not the only war we are fighting. We are also engaged at home in a struggle to restore decency and morality in the public square. The battle to protect our children from those who seek an opportunity to corrupt them is a battle we cannot afford to lose.
Some observers have predicted that if homosexual activists continue their relentless attacks on the nation’s moral underpinnings they will inevitably create a backlash that will send them reeling back into the closet.
Fine. Let the backlash begin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Reagan, the eldest son of President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Premiere Radio Network.
That's false, do a Google.
"Laws against poaching discriminate against carnivores, since vegans are never charged."
Poaching is stealing, the eating habit of the thief ois never discussed...that's another stupid statement from you.
"Laws against speeding discriminate against those with no cars."
The law is speeding while driving.
CJ, you are an idiot. You make up crap that can be proven false with a simple Google or YAHOO search, and you expect anyone to take you seriously.
You are pathetic.
No one is prohibiting you from practicing your religion, you however, wish to prohibit the actions of another based on your religious morals.
Looks like you, as usual, have it ass backwards.
I am a private individual, I have the right not to give $$$ to charities that I don't want to give $$$ to, so, because I don't like the United Ways policies, I don't give them $$$.
It's America, it's free nation, which bothers people like you.
Well said and worth repeating!
So tell me...I promise not to whisper a word to anyone. Did it happen in College, or in the services?
Please! Don't draw him out of the closet anymore than he already is.
His numerous graphic descriptions of disgusting acts (which he seems far to familiar with) are offensive enough.
I don't need to hear about his personal life.
The "issues" Luis is refering to are FAR FROM "unspoken".
We see these issues posted week after week in repeated and unecessarily graphic discriptions of acts which are "projected" onto these boards...and NOT by Luis.
Everybody I know agrees that the guy who is constantly obsessed with calling people "fags" and "homos" and trying to impress everybody with how much he hates them..and is ALWAYS describing obscene acts, is the one suspected of having real personal issues.
And rightly so.
You're more than welcome.
Dismantling their weak arguments is like shooting fish in a barrel.
It's fun.
Are you making a distinction between religious morality and non-religious morality?
Exactly what role do you advocate people of faith taking in the American Governmental Process? Or are you suggesting that people of faith should bow out?
Shalom.
This has been pointed out to you before, and you have ignored it.
IN the eyes of the law, when it comes to crime, we are not all simply citizens. Some are criminals and some are not.
There is no physical or biological difference between a normal person and a homoerotically oriented person. The difference is the behavior of same-sex erotic activity. If same-sex erotic activity is illegal, it is perfectly reasonable to call those who engage in such activity criminals while not calling those who do not engage in such acticity criminals.
If you are aware of any proof of a physical or biological test for homoerotic orientation, please feel free to point it out.
Shalom.
Look more closely and you will see lots more laws being aimed at how the religious treat queers than how queers behave.
In fact, in every thread where I see you I remind you that nobody cares what the queers do in the privacy of their own homes. It's things like their attack on the Boy Scouts (remember the topic of this thread?) that are at issue. If the queers force the Boy Scouts to accept queer leaders, who will be using laws to prohibit what?
Try to stick to the subject. And try very hard not to find a way to twist what people are talking about.
Shalom.
But the people who engage in such disgusting acts are not sick and in need of help?
Sounds like a case of attempting to shoot the messenger.
Shalom.
I've never seen anyone engage in those acts. However, I've read detailed descriptions about those acts here in FR.
I think the people with the need to post detailed descriptions of what they consider to be perverted sexual acts on a public forum are sick and in need of help.
Let's enact a law that says that if you discuss perverted acts in a public forum, you should go to jail.
Agreed?
This is the normal, "I see only what I want to see" part of FR that is so often annoying. But it is good for people to keep posting the same tired tripe and good for us to keep shooting it down. We never know how many lurkers are seeing the thread and going over some of the arguments for the first time.
For those lurkers - some homo Q&A
*Straight Americans Speaking Up
Q: Why are you so fixated on homosexuals?
A: Actually, nobody would be more happy than I would for the whole issue to go away. There are plenty of problems in this world and they all need attention. But the squeaky wheel gets the grease, as they say. SADs are trying to teach their perversion in our schools. Adulterers aren't. Murderers aren't. Cannibals aren't. SADs are trying to get special laws written to protect their immoral lifestyle. Adulterers aren't. Murderers aren't. Cannibals aren't. SADS are trying to force themselves into the clubs we use to turn young boys into men. Adulterers aren't.
Well, you get the picture.
Q: Don't you think it's awfully rude to refer to homosexuals as "perverts?"
A: As opposed to what? They are perverts. A pervert is someone who perverts sex - who practices an abnormal kind of sex. Just because you want to pretend that there is no such thing as an abnormal kind of sex doesn't mean there isn't.
Maybe you are objecting because I am not calling necrophiliacs, or sado-masochists, or cross-dressers perverts. But that's only because they don't have huge threads devoted to justifying thier perverted lifestyles.
Q: Why should society be involved in personal issues such as (marriage, drug use, homosexual sex, etc.)?
A:People exist in society not by convenience but because people are social by nature. We do not exist well in a vacuum. Part of the function of our society is to maintain norms of interaction that will allow us to survive. We call these norms our culture. Historically, cultures must be based on concrete fundamental truths. They can't be based on the whims of the moment or they will fall apart. In fact, historically, those cultures that have lasted the longest were based on concrete fundamental truths and they fell only when the societies stopped enforcing those rules. To date, only one culture in all of human history has been able to reconstruct itself after it fell, and that was because it returned to those concrete fundamental truths and cherished them until it could regain its land. I'm talking about Jewish culture and Israel.
America was founded on concrete fundamental truths. France was not. Both governments had similar ideals, but America had a culture to sustain those ideals and the government has been working here for over 250 years. You can't say the same for France because their culture is not based on concrete fundamental truths. If America lets those truths go, we will go the way of France, which is headed for the same fate as Babylon or Ninevah or Rome or any other ancient culture.
Q: Why should society care what individuals do?
A: If decent human beings don't stand up and fight for our foundational culture, our republic will be lost, because as moral values are tossed aside, the government will be there to regulate the behavior produced by those loss of morals. A climate of immorality only gives the government an opportunity to expand.
Q: Social and/or legal discouragement of homosexuality won't reduce the occurance of SAD
A: If the practice of homosexuality is shunned people would be more eager to overcome the defects in their lives than succumb to them. SAD is curable, you just have to want to be normal again. Unfortunately in today's society we support these SADs in their sickness giving them no motivation to be cured.
Society is essentially enabling the deviants to live a comfortable life as a deviant instead of encouraging them to seek a cure.
Q: If gays were allowed to marry like normal people then the negatives (promiscuity, disease, domestic violence) associated with existing gay (male) lifestyle would decrease.
A: A 'monogomous' SAD couple were responsible for the rape and torture of Jesse Dirkhising. The incidence of monogomy in the SAD culture is extrememly small. What makes you think that a piece of paper will cause people to be monogomous when they spend all their time now being promiscuous? The only thing that will stop SAD promiscuity is SADs getting healed.
Q: Why should evidence that one can discourage welfare dependence by making welfare unavailable tell us anything about whether we can discourage homosexuality by keeping marriage unavailable?
A: They are both behaviors. Make the results of the behavior unpleasant and the behavior will eventually go away. The problem now is that SADs are coddled rather than forced to face their perversion and it's results. Therefore they choose to remain in the SAD lifestyle instead of seeking a cure.
NOTE: This isn't just a SAD issue. This applies to all sexual deviancy.
Q: Why would allowing 'gay' marriage mean allowing other perversions to marry? Leaving aside that marriages to dogs or dead people or children cannot be consensual, and are therefore not comparable to the mutual commitment of two adult humans (of the same or different sexes), why can't we just say "yes" to one and "no" to the others?
A: The union of two men or two women is not comparable to the union of one man to one woman as the SAD union has no potential to produce children (which as we all know are the future of our society). So right now our laws do say "yes" to one and "no" to the other. We say yes to beneficial marriages (those that have the potential to produce new members of society) and no to detrimental marriages (those that have no potential to produce). Rather than start down the slippery slope of allowing all perversions to marry lets just say no to all of them.
(Note that inability to have children due to impotence etc in a normal couple is usually not known until after the marriage. The institution must support the potential to have children which ONLY male-female *normal* marriages provide)
Q: Comparing 'gay' marriage to bestial (pedophilial, necrophilial etc) marriage is not a valid comparison.
A: If we break the definition to include one detrimental type of union we will eventually have to break it to allow all of them. Look at how the pedophiles are lobbying the APA to be delisted as a disease (or they may already have been) they are about 15-20 years behind the SADs. History shows us that compromise on our core values always results in the death of those values.
After all pedophilial marriage is not comparable to beastial marriage because its two humans involved. And bestial marriage is not comparable to necrophilial marriage becasue two living things are involved. Etc ad nauseum. There will always be a reason why the next favorite perversion is somehow better than the second next favorite perversion. Let's just sidestep the whole thing and disallow all the perversions (which is what our laws do now)
Q: But I also think that gays can only be more likely to behave in manner more supportive of good social order if society treats them as if it expects such responsible behavior.
A: You are correct. The practice of homosexual sex is not now, nor will it ever be, 'responsible behavior'. Therefore we must expect, and make that expectation known, that the SADs seek a cure to their behavior.
Q: Shutting gays out of "respectable" society and its institutions only encourages rebellious and self-destructive behavior.
A: The problem is that SADs are not shut out of respectable society. You can't fire someone just because they are a pervert. You can't kick them out of rental property you own, you can't socially penalize them in any way. If we did, we'd have less SADs. The practice of homosexual sex is not now, nor will it ever be, "responsible behavior"
Q: Do you really advocate throwing all homosexuals in jail?
A: Everyone who practices illegal behavior should be thrown in jail upon presentation of the evidence and proper due process. Certain homosexual behaviors are illegal and should be prosecuted. (Some heterosexual behaviors shuld be illegal and should be prosecuted.)
Nobody should be thrown in jail for simply saying, "Hi, I'm gay" or holding hands with someone of the same sex in public.
The actual SASU preference for those cases is that the offenders won't ever be invited to any parties. Civil societies don't always need laws to enforce their moral standards.
Q: Do you believe all homosexuals should be put in jail? How about subjected to the death penalty?
A: Certain destructive behaviors should definately be held to be illegal - such as sodomy which is very dangerous to the recipient. But we shouldn't be able to kick people's doors in to find out if they're engaged in sodomy. We can wait for a body or for a public sex act before we take any legal action.
What about other sexual acts? I'd like our society to hold that all sexual acts are to be performed in private and to punish public "lewdness" appropriately. But the community in which the act is performed has to make that judgement and enforce it accordingly. It's not something for us to undertake at any higher governmental level than city hall.
I definately do not approve of using the death penalty for a sexual offense. The current definitions of a capital crime do not need to have any crimes added in my opinion.
Q: Homosexuality is genetic. Therefore it's ok
A: No study has ever found a 'gay' gene. In fact studies using identical twins have shown that there is no genetic component to SAD.
For the sake of argument however, lets assume that a 'gay' gene is found. SAD then falls into the area of other genetic diseases like alcoholism. Just because an alcoholic is genetically predisposed to the disease should society excuse his self-damaging behavior and let him drink as much as he wants? NO! Society demands that he control his behavior and stay sober in order to be a member of respectable society. Drunks aren't welcome in most places including most places of business.
Likewise, if SAD is genetic, the SADs should be shut out of respectable society until they control their behavior. This includes shutting them out of any place where children or respectable people will be. Socially repugnant behavior is socially repugnent whether it is genetic or not.
Q: Can you prove that homosexual behavior is harmful?
A: To individuals? The medical evidence is overwhelming. To society? The only way to "prove" such a thing is to design an experiment where there are two groups of societies where the only distinguishing feature is that one allows homosexual behavior and the other doesn't. Then we have to watch and see what happens. Even if we could do such a thing, wouldn't it be a tad unethical to try?
A more telling question is, can you prove that homosexual behavior is not harmful to a society. Remember we started with a society that didn't permit homosexual behavior and was doing well. In all of history, homosexual behavior has been shunned, or the society did not stand. While that does not constitute proof, it does stand as evidence. We have a standard that works. Now you want to tinker with that standard. The risk to our children is great if homosexual behavior is inded harmful. Why should we let you tinker? Give me something concrete that says you aren't doing any harm before I let you experiment with my society. The burden of proof is on you, not me.
Q: Why do you focus on homosexuality? Aren't adultery and fornication just as much an abomination to God? Those are heterosexual sins. Why don't you pay any attention to them?
A: Christians don't just focus on SAD. But in the public policy arena the adulterers and fornicators are happy to keep the issue private. When such issues become public Christians do respond, as when Gary Hart had to withdraw from his presidential bid, or when Bill Clinton was impeached. We even respond to our own, as when Jimmy Swaggart was caught with a prostitute, or when Gary Bauer was meeting with a female junior staffer behind closed doors for long periods of time. Homosexual Activists are the ones who force Christians to address SAD as a public policy issue. If they had been happy to keep their sexual deviancy a private issue, Christians would be happy to be focusing on other things.
But while all sin is sin from the moral perspective, there is a progression from less destructive to more destructive from the social and personal perspective. There is also a progression from soft heart (like King David) to hard heart (like Pharoah). Adultery and fornication are wrong and destructive. And they are more wrong and destructive than greed and gluttony, which are more wrong and destructive than white lies. Picture a slippery slope on the way to a completely hardened heart. Some sins are closer to the soft hart, other sins are closer to the hard heart. The Bible, especially Romans 1, makes it clear that SAD is the final step. Romans tells us that "God gave them up..." God doesn't give up easily. SADs are very nearly completely hardened. Ex-gays will tell you how hard it is to come out of that lifestyle. They will also tell you how important it is.
Q: Remember, the devil did not make ten percent of our population left handed nor ten percent gay. It was our God in heaven who created man. Perhaps Gods image includes the capacity to love and tolerate.
A: God made man in His own image. God does not have SAD. (In fact God sees the practice of homosexual behavior as abomination, something so evil that those who participate in it should be killed instantly) Therefore God did not create anyone to be homosexual. Why would He create something He finds abhorrent?
One key to keep in mind is that no civilization is based on right-handedness, or brown hair, or green eyes. These things can change and do change and the civilizations that exhibit various combinations of them endure. But civilizations based on skin color or ethnicity have fallen. That's because it is morally wrong to discriminate against people because of their ethnicity. And civilizations based on perverted sexual behavior have fallen, becuase it is morally wrong to have sex outside of a monagomous, life-long, heterosexual marriage.
Neither racism nor homosexuality should be tolerated. Both will destroy us.
Q: Didn't God create Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Josef Stalin, and Osama bin Laden? If, as you suggest, that SAD is evil, isn't it possible that God still created them in the same way as He created these evil rulers?
A: God created these people, just has He created those who would become infected with SAD. He did not however, twist them into the things they became, just as He does not infect people with SAD. Man through his rebellion and pride brought these diseases upon himself. The hitlers of the world arise not because of God but because man tries to elevate himself above God.
Adolf Hitler as a baby was just as cute and lovable as any other baby. He was not born the monster that he became. Somewhere along the line though he was damaged by his contact with this evil (just as young boys are damaged by their contact with SADs) and grew to become the twisted person we know as the tyrant Adolf Hitler.
Q: Do you really believe that homosexuals are the moral equivalent of murderers?
A: If you don't believe in God, your concept of morality is likely somewhat pragmatic. It would be based on some scale of what works and what doesn't according to your own cognative ability.
I believe in God. He has a longer perspective than I do and a much better grasp on the interrelationship of men and their cultures. From that perspective, a SAD might be actually below a murderer. A murderer may kill one or a hundred people. But the people will likely know he is a murderer. At some point he draws a weapon. Even if the victim doesn't know, the evidence of the dead body shows that a murderer is around. People become afraid and defensive against the murderer.
The SAD, however, tries to position himself as an honest, upright, reasonable, all-around-good guy. People don't defend against him. As a result, he doesn't destroy one or a hundred lives, he destroys an entire civilization. He does so by hiding his destructiveness from view until it is too late.
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.