The United Way's Boy Scout Fetish

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | May 19, 2003 | Michael Reagan

[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.

[Kuksool]

Much of the FR anti-homosexual threads are not due to an obsession with homosexuality. Flame bait is the objective here. Some freepers post the most outrageous comments about homosexuals, and sit there laughing as people try to point out that their statements are lies. These people just enjoy inciting anger in others.

[dsc]

You might want to consider that the truth can seem outrageous.

Plausibility is not a reliable test of accuracy.

[dsc]

"You actually think homosexuality is some modern activity that Jesus didn't have to talk about back in his day?"

No, no more than I think that *every* comment of His is recorded in the Scriptures.

"The idea that people now need graphic descriptions of things that have gone on for 1,000s of years is silly."

No, not in a lot of cases. Many people don't bother to think about such things until it's brought to their attention. Is it silly when foes of baby killing use photographs to demonstrate the reality of that atrocity?

"Jesus didn't talk about things that were simply unspeakable and anybody who had any sense knew it."

And we know that...how?

"Those who broadcast this sort of vulgar garbage on these boards are clearly not doing so in the name of holiness...but out of their desire to throw mud at those they have personal hatred for"

Charity requires that I assume you believe that statement, as offensive and false as it is. Accordingly, I'm going to do the best I can to explain why it isn't true.

As I stated above, many people don't think about such things until they're right in their faces. They are as a consequence often led by social pressures and the sophistry of activists to support positions that they would oppose if they thought the matter through with a full understanding of exactly what is involved.

It is therefore desirable, even a duty, to see to it that the full, explicit, ugly details are not hidden or glossed over, to help our fellow man avoid being flim-flammed.

It's interesting that so many accept the deceit involved in referring to abortion as the disposal of a clump of cells, or at best a "fetus," and in the aversion to the display of explicit photographs of early-term babies in the womb and of babies killed by abortionists (in collusion with their own mothers)--and yet we are here faced with opposition to exactly the same phenomenon (the presentation of accurate information) on the grounds that it is "vulgar garbage."

Well, yes, homosexual behavior is vulgar, and descriptions of it can be difficult to endure. Not, for me, as difficult as photographs of babies killed by abortionists or a description of partial-birth abortion, but difficult. But surely we have a duty to know the thing for what it is, to inform ourselves if we are to participate responsibly in society's decisions on such matters.

The pro-aborts often criticize the pro-life activists for the offensiveness and vulgarity of their (entirely accurate and truthful) photographs, and here we have people criticizing those who oppose the legitimization of SSAD for the offensiveness and vulgarity of their descriptions of homosexual acts.

Makes you go, "Hmmm."

[dsc]

"Sin is a cancer, and individual sins corrupt an entire society. If you wait until the society is corrupt, it is too late."

Yes, you're spot on with that. I would point out, though, that one doesn't even have to invoke sin. There are entirely secular reasons that the legitimization of SSAD corrupts a society, too.

"Just look at the "greed" of the 1980s and they way it actually hurt thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, when the dot-com bubble burst."

Some of the biggest effects of Reagan's tax and regulatory cutbacks were the growth in the black middle and upper classes, and the shrinkage in the number of people below the poverty line.

"Greed" was the word selected by leftists to malign the entrepreneurial spirit and ambition unleashed by greater liberty.

[Taiwan Bocks]

All in all, back and forth with you these days I've made simple points,
my opinions of being against the homosexual agenda
and their fight for the right to have opportunities to molest children.

I believe this and the issue of the industry of killing babies for cash
we will answer directly for in the hereafter,
we will answer for our stances and our actions on Earth.

I will willingly be called a loser by you
rather than not speaking up against these disgusting sinful practices.

[Jorge]

Many people don't bother to think about such things until it's brought to their attention. Is it silly when foes of baby killing use photographs to demonstrate the reality of that atrocity?

As objectionable as the photos in some pro-life rallies are to people..there is a distinct reason for them being displayed.

It is to discredit the claims that a fetus is not a baby and that abortion is NOT taking a human life.

As shocking and repulsive these photos are, they very effectively serve the purpose of exposing exactly what abortion is about.

There is however no such public debate over what fisting is, or what drinking urine means etc etc.

[Jorge]

"Those who broadcast this sort of vulgar garbage on these boards are clearly not doing so in the name of holiness...but out of their desire to throw mud at those they have personal hatred for"

Charity requires that I assume you believe that statement, as offensive and false as it is.

I don't need your charity, and you can "assume" whatever you like about what I "believe"..I don't really care.

I am quite familiar, all the Christian objections to homosexuality from a Biblical point of view and I agree with them 100%.
I've debated and discussed this issue in several online forums.

I know the difference between genuine moral convictions vs personal hatred, bigotry and hypocrisy.

I have never once heard a truly committed Christian address the issue of homosexual sin (or any other sexual sin for that matter) by making repeated graphic descriptions of every vulgar and obscene act they imagine people engaging in.
IMHO those who do so are deeply disturbed individuals with no sense of perspective on issues of holiness or morality.

[dsc]

"As objectionable as the photos in some pro-life rallies are to people..there is a distinct reason for them being displayed."

And that is the same reason for informing people about the practices of SSAD sufferers.

"It is to discredit the claims that a fetus is not a baby and that abortion is NOT taking a human life."

And in the case of SSAD, it is to discredit claims that their practices are normal, healthy, and equivalent in every way to normal heterosexual behavior.

"As shocking and repulsive these photos are, they very effectively serve the purpose of exposing exactly what abortion is about."

And as shocking as some descriptions are, they very effectively serve the purpose of exposing exactly what SSAD is about.

"There is however no such public debate over what fisting is, or what drinking urine means etc etc."

It's not a question of what it is, but a question of those practices occurring at all, and with what frequency. When I was younger, it would never have occurred to me--it never did occur to me--that people did those things, or many other things common among SSAD sufferers.

In college, I accepted the PC position on both baby-killing and SSAD without much thought, both because I had no information to fuel rigorous thought and because nobody was demanding that I think about the subjects.

The PC types like to discourage rigourous thought on these subjects. "Nothing to think about here, folks, just accept what we say and move on."

The purpose of the abortion photographs and the descriptions of SSAD alike is to say, "Woah. Don't 'move on.' There *is* something to think about here."

"I don't need your charity"

I don't do a very good job of trying to think the best of everyone, but I have realized the worth of trying.

"I am quite familiar, all the Christian objections to homosexuality from a Biblical point of view and I agree with them 100%."

That's good. We're in agreement there.

"I know the difference between genuine moral convictions vs personal hatred, bigotry and hypocrisy."

I have no idea how well you do with that on a general basis, but in this case you have made a mistake. Further, attributing "hatred" to others on such flimsy grounds seems to me lacking in the Christian virtue of charity. And that's something I'm familiar with, as I so often lack it myself.

I personally believe that, if Satan did not introduce homoseuxality to mankind, he at least uses the issue to the great detriment of our souls. When I look at a pervofascist activist, therefore, I do feel anger, and sometimes even hatred. But that is directed at their cause and the dark one behind it.

Being human, sometimes those feelings spill over onto the person agitating for that cause, but when I reflect and pray on it, I can see the separate issues of the man, whom God loves as much as he loves me, and the cause he so mistakenly espouses.

You are making far too many assumptions about those who oppose the legitimization of SSAD more strongly than you do.

"I have never once heard a truly committed Christian address the issue of homosexual sin (or any other sexual sin for that matter) by making repeated graphic descriptions of every vulgar and obscene act they imagine people engaging in."

Well, I consider myself to be a committed Christian--and pray that I'm not flattering myself--and I will use graphic descriptions in response to an argument that homosexual practices are normal and healthy. I regret that the people who hear these descriptions are often sickened by them, but reflect that they are sickened by the very thing they are arguing is normal and healthy. It has happened that such descriptions have prompted deeper, fuller reflection on the matter in (now former) supporters of the pervofascist agenda.

"IMHO those who do so are deeply disturbed individuals with no sense of perspective on issues of holiness or morality."

YHO is mistaken.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Actually, if you started using your brain to think with, rather than your spinal chord, you would not be throwing around ridiculous statements like "their fight for the right to have opportunities to molest children".

What a completely ridiculous, absurd, thoughtless statement.

If in fact, what homosexuals wanted to truly do was to have an opportunity to "molest children", the LAST thing they would be doing is attracting attention to their homosexuality as they fill out the paperwork to become Scout Leaders!

Child molesters, by and large, are normally people we trust, people we know. They can be an uncle, a neighbor, a member of the clergy.

This article was about the board of directors of United Way Miami, deciding to withhold donations to the BSA, in the aftermath of the Scout's Supreme Court victory, where their right to set standards for the people they accept in their organization as "leaders" was upheld.

The Boy Scouts of America have the right to set standards for their leadership, the United Way has the right to withhold donations to the BSA as a sign of disagreement over the policy of not allowing gay Scout leaders, and you and I have the right to withhold donations to the United Way as a sign of disagreement over their decision.

That's what America is all about.

Learn from it.

Send a donation to the BSA, and then send a note to the United Way letting them know why you will never send them any money.

Freedom baby...try it, it's contagious.

[Luis Gonzalez]

These are people who, having the ability to hide behind the anonymity of the internet, get some sort of thrill out of talking dirty and calling other people names.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Don't confuse a person's "perversions" with a person's "preferences."

And of course, you get to decide which is which...Elijah, is that you?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I will use graphic descriptions in response to an argument that homosexual practices are normal and healthy."

You use them to get some sort of weird, perverse, erotic thrill.

There is no one on this thread, and I would hazard a guess that no adults anywhere, who do not know what homosexual acts are.

[Jorge]

Jorge "As objectionable as the photos in some pro-life rallies are to people..there is a distinct reason for them being displayed.It is to discredit the claims that a fetus is not a baby and that abortion is NOT taking a human life."

And in the case of SSAD, it is to discredit claims that their practices are normal, healthy, and equivalent in every way to normal heterosexual behavior.

Right. People are too stupid to know that homosexual relations are not necessarily the equivalent of heterosexual behavior.
This is a joke right?

And as far as the graphic descriptions of perverted sexual behaviors posted by some...to, as you say "discredit claims that they are normal"...the fact is most of them are practiced by heterosexuals as well.

Anyone knows that if you type any of these discriptions into a search engine..you will come up with far more heterosexual web sites, than homosexual ones.

So please don't tell me about this need to make heterosexuals aware of what some homosexuals do. They are quite aware because many of these heterosexuals engage in the same acts.

[Jorge]

"There is however no such public debate over what fisting is, or what drinking urine means etc etc."

It's not a question of what it is, but a question of those practices occurring at all, and with what frequency. When I was younger, it would never have occurred to me--it never did occur to me--that people did those things, or many other things common among SSAD sufferers.

When you were "younger"?
Are you arguing that we should supply young people with graphic descriptions of perverse sexual acts...so they can be aware of them?

In any case, when they get older they will probably become aware that some people engage in these acts..and unlike yourself, they will know that they are not just homosexuals.

[Jorge]

"I know the difference between genuine moral convictions vs personal hatred, bigotry and hypocrisy."

I have no idea how well you do with that on a general basis, but in this case you have made a mistake.

In what case? Please specify.

I am quite sure that I can document the hatred, bigotry and hypocrisy of those examples I am refering to.

Examples that go far beyond any normal Christian conviction against sexual immorality.

Further, attributing "hatred" to others on such flimsy grounds seems to me lacking in the Christian virtue of charity. And that's something I'm familiar with, as I so often lack it myself.

Good for you.

Why can't you observe this "lack of Christian virtue of charity" in the sort of bigoted, homphobic hatred I am refering to?

I understand completely that Christian moral convictions would necessarily make one opposed to homosexuality..as well as adultery and fornication.

It is precisely the complete lack of "charity" these individuals exhibit towards homosexuals...that convinces me their homophobia has less to do with moral convictions of right and wrong....and more to do with personal hatred and bigotry.

[Jorge]

"I will use graphic descriptions in response to an argument that homosexual practices are normal and healthy."

You use them to get some sort of weird, perverse, erotic thrill.

There is no one on this thread, and I would hazard a guess that no adults anywhere, who do not know what homosexual acts are.

¡Por supuesto! The idea that most people are so ignorant of the biological and physical attributes of male vs female...that they don't know what homosexual activity is...is rather silly.

[dsc]

"You use them to get some sort of weird, perverse, erotic thrill."

Oh, so we've already sunk to the level of inventing scurrilous lies to slur the other fellow's character?

Well, it's never long before those on your side of this issue start in on that.

Bye, now.

[dsc]

“In what case? Please specify.”

In this case:

“I am quite sure that I can document the hatred, bigotry and hypocrisy of those examples I am refering to.”

For starters, you are only inferring hatred. Secondly, they would only be hypocrites if they were practicing homosexuals themselves. And thirdly, it can never be appropriate to apply the term “bigotry” to an aversion to sexual perverts.

“Why can't you observe this "lack of Christian virtue of charity" in the sort of bigoted, homphobic hatred I am refering to?”

Because it’s the illusory product of your own prejudices. (By the way, the word “homophobic” has no correct usages.)

“It is precisely the complete lack of "charity" these individuals exhibit towards homosexuals...that convinces me their homophobia has less to do with moral convictions of right and wrong....and more to do with personal hatred and bigotry.”

Instead of “homophobia,” try “the entirely normal aversion normal people feel for sexual perverts.” Your repeated use of the word “homophobia” makes me increasingly sure that your judgment of those who say unkind things about SSAD sufferers is unduly colored by prejudice.

“When you were "younger"?

Yeah, you know, forty years ago when I was in my teens.

“Are you arguing that we should supply young people with graphic descriptions of perverse sexual acts...so they can be aware of them?”

So they can be aware of the dangers that surround them, yes, they should be made aware of what these people get up to. And that should be done when their parents decide they’re old enough, or that the danger is immediate enough.

“In any case, when they get older they will probably become aware that some people engage in these acts..and unlike yourself, they will know that they are not just homosexuals.”

There is no moral equivalence between an act performed by a man and a woman and the same act performed by two men.

“Right. People are too stupid to know that homosexual relations are not necessarily the equivalent of heterosexual behavior. This is a joke right?”

You think so? Go over to some PC site and post a note saying they’re not morally equivalent. Take your asbestos long johns.

“And as far as the graphic descriptions of perverted sexual behaviors posted by some...to, as you say "discredit claims that they are normal"...the fact is most of them are practiced by heterosexuals as well.”

I think that’s the silliest irrelevancy in this thread so far. The fact that some heterosexuals practice perversions has nothing to do with anything I’ve said.

“Anyone knows that if you type any of these discriptions into a search engine..you will come up with far more heterosexual web sites, than homosexual ones.”

Oh, “anyone knows,” do they? Let’s see...that would mean there are more heterosexual web sites dealing with one man buggering another than there are homosexual sites dealing with that. Interesting.

I really don’t know what might be out there in terms of web sites dealing with perversions. But I do know that I meet a lot of people who don’t put much thought into the issue.

“So please don't tell me about this need to make heterosexuals aware of what some homosexuals do. They are quite aware because many of these heterosexuals engage in the same acts.”

Let’s see…some heterosexuals practice perversions, therefore every heterosexual knows everything there is to know about homosexuality, and has focused and thought deeply on the issue.

What a crock.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Oh, so we've already sunk to the level of inventing scurrilous lies to slur the other fellow's character?"

Actually, that started back on post #7, it was directed at me before I even entered the thread.

The fact that you missed that, every other lie leveled at me, and every single one of the many, many attacks designed to slur MY character, is just further proof of your blatant dishonesty.

[dsc]

Well, dude, *I* haven't told any lies about you, or even been unpleasant to you, so don't pretend that you have any excuse for your last two notes to me.