The United Way's Boy Scout Fetish

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

[dsc]

In a system of self-government, everybody has the right to try and have his values voted into law.

The pro-sodomy activists have had some luck with that, but they've achieved greater successes through judicial fiat.

But when somebody who opposes them argues his viewpoint, suddenly it's "imposing."

Go figure.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Get a spine and quit giving to United Way if that's what you believe about them. You're not hurting them by designating your contribution to Scouting, you're simply enriching them as they skim 15% off the top. Do yourself and the Scouts a favor--give directly to Scouting.

[Taiwan Bocks]

What, you don't think sodomists fighting for the right to molest Boy Scouts deserves melodramatic?

Hmm... how about shoe bombs in planes, would that get you off your seat?

[Roscoe]

I defend the right of every single one of the citizens of this nation to speak their mind, and to ask the government for redress.

And the "redress" sought? A sodomy entitlement?

[Luis Gonzalez]

There are no constitutional restrictions placed on that unalienable right, are there?

Whether that redress is sought for an equal protection under the law issue, an issue of bad laws, whatever the issue may be, the First Amendment right stands in spite of yours or anyone's dislike for the topic.

The hard part for all you guys to swallow is that every citizen in this country is entitled to the same freedoms as every other citizen.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"What, you don't think sodomists fighting for the right to molest Boy Scouts deserves melodramatic?"

Show me on thios article where that is mentioned?

By the way, when you talk about children being molested, you must be talking about pedophiles. Different subject for a different thread.

Now you are adding red herrings to melodramatics while concocting you fear factor soup.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...I am imposing my values onto everyone else..."

Good, you are finally adimitting to it. Now back off, I am not interested in your imposing anything on me.

"...as are you, and everyone else."

No I am not, I am telling you that you have no right to use the power of government to do what you just admitted to doing.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Forcing other people to accept evil is taking away their right to pursue happiness"

Your definition of evil is subjective, it doesn't fit mine. You do not get to define evil for all of society.

"By your logic, abortion should be legal since you are never going to be a victim of it."

There is a victim in abortion, where is the victim in the consensual act between two adults?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Now, you refuse to answer this question, I understand why, but I am going to keep asking you.

Please tell me which one of your rights are violated by two men having sex with one another in the privacy of their house, behind closed doors and windows.

[dsc]

"Please tell me which one of your rights are violated by two men having sex with one another in the privacy of their house, behind closed doors and windows."

That "in the privacy" fallacy has been blown out of the water at least twice on this thread, and you show no indication of having even noticed.

Surely it couldn't be that you did notice, that you realize it's not about "privacy" but about an activist agenda, and you're still repeating it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Answer the question.

The actual issue beoing discussed is whether there should be laws against homosexual sodomy, acts are criminalized when the commission af that act violates one person's rights in one way or another.

There a sea of difference between arguing in favor of the BSA's right to free association, and their setting standards for membership, whether the United Way has a right to withhold funds from anyone (which they do as well), and whether sodomy laws are equitable and stupid.

What you will not understand, is that criminalizing sodomy based on little more than your feelings on the subject, will simply add fuel to the activist agenda.

Nothing you can do has the power to overcome an American citizen's rights under the Constitution, and the more you try to beat them down, the more activists you'll create.

Concentrate on the things that matter, and not on the no-win fights. If you say "no" to any sexual education beingh taught in school (or are you in favor of the government teaching sexual education to our kids?) then you will defeat the "gay" lobby demanding that homosexual sex be taught alongside heterosexual sex, without providing them with the strawman of "discrimination".

That's just one example out of many.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"That "in the privacy" fallacy has been blown out of the water at least twice on this thread."

There are two, or maybe even more issues here.

I believe that the government does not belong in the bedroom of ANY citizen, thus the "privacy" issue, and I also believe that all people's bedroom behavior needs to remain in their bedroom, which is why I oppose the "gay" agenda or any agenda which seeks to neutralize or even eliminate my parental role.

Two distinct issues and I can easily separate one from the other.

[ArGee]

Anybody, no matter how opposed they are to such behavior should also have the sense to know it is completely unecessary and beyond socially acceptable norms to broadcast graphic descriptions of such acts in public forums.

I disagree - and I would think ministers would discuss such topics from the pulpit if they believed that the congregation needed to know.

While I haven't read anything on FR that I didn't already know, the issues raised do point out the need for those engaging in such acts to get help. It doesn't matter whether they engage in the acts publicly or privately except as a matter of public policy. They still need help.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

Do you have a reading and comprehension disability? You continue to make this thread into something other than what it is about!

Since you and I are both stupid, I'll let you have the last word.

Shalom.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Welcome to Phylum Chordata! LOL. Good for you. I don't understand this pressure folks have to donate. I get all sorts of encouraging reminders to do so, but I just ignore them. In honor of your courageous decision, I'm going to have to respond next time making my reason for not participating known.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

You ain't akiddin'.

[Roscoe]

There are no constitutional restrictions placed on that unalienable right, are there?

Perverts are free to demand a sodomy entitlement, society is free to reject that goal.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I will return my next UW solicitation with the donation amount of a big, fat $0!"

Don't forget to tell them why, and that they can expect the same donation next year as well.