Posted on 09/03/2002 1:10:11 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Broadcasting from the Minneapolis affiliate of my radio show last week, I was treated to a Minnesota Twins game. Having become accustomed to baseball games at home in Los Angeles, I observed many differences at the Metrodome. Among them was an absence of foul language from the fans – I felt I had taken a time machine to the 1950s, so family-friendly was the atmosphere. I also appreciated the lack of instant replay on the stadium video screen. Apparently, the Twins management has the rare attitude that fans come to a baseball game to watch the game live, not on a TV screen.
But the Twins feature that most intrigued me was the "kiss cam."
A couple of times between innings, a stadium camera focused on couples, who, when they saw themselves on the large stadium monitor inside a big red heart, gave each other a kiss. It was all quite innocent. I know, because I did not feel at all uncomfortable with my 9-year-old son, and I am zealous about guarding his innocence in the jaded culture America gives its children. Indeed, as often as not, the couples were in their later years, and when they kissed each other, we all felt good. Who isn't happy to see romance flourish in older couples?
And then a thought occurred to me: Wasn't the Metrodome engaging in discrimination? Surely, there were some same-sex couples at the ball game. Why weren't any of them shown kissing on the "kiss cam"? How could it be that in the state of libertarian Gov. Jesse Ventura and Sen. Paul Wellstone, perhaps the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, such discrimination could take place?
I raised this question on my radio show, and Minneapolis callers were unanimous in responding that whether Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, the vast majority of people attending a Twins game would not accept a "kiss cam" depicting two men or two women kissing each other.
If these callers were right – and I suspect they were – it means that even liberal and libertarian Minnesotans do not want to be confronted by public displays of homosexual affection, especially when children are present. But how can that be?
The answer is that many liberals engage in self-deception regarding homosexuality. Their rhetoric of "tolerance" and "diversity" has trapped them into losing touch with their own deepest values and intuitions. Liberals boycott the Boy Scouts because the Boy Scouts want to provide heterosexual scoutmasters as models for their boys. But when actually confronted with homosexuality, most liberals do not react with the acceptance they seek to impose on others.
A writer in a major gay journal noted the phenomenon years ago – how even his most liberal straight friends do not want him to kiss his boyfriends in front of their children.
In the depths of the consciences and hearts of the vast majority of heterosexual liberals, there is a voice that says that male-male or female-female sexual bonding is not quite the same as male-female sexual bonding, and that while the homosexual is every bit as lovable as the heterosexual, homosexual sex is not what we wish for our children. And not because there exists social discrimination against gays, but because we truly want our children to love a member of the opposite sex and to sexually bond with that person.
It is almost impossible for heterosexual liberals, who have redefined tolerance to mean acceptance, to admit all this, but the Twins game made it abundantly clear. That is why the "kiss cam" at the Minneapolis Metrodome will only show heterosexual kissers for the foreseeable future, even as most Minneapolis liberals, like liberals all over America, continue to defame the Boy Scouts and anyone else who holds the same ideal for their children that these liberals hold for theirs.
Yes, but when such people are your child's mentors, they are putting a stamp of approval on those behaviors, seen or not. When a homosexual man is a scoutmaster, you're blaring out to your kids that anal intercourse is just fine and dandy. I can tolerate such also. I don't want a stamp of approval put on it for my kids.
Avowed means what it means. Someone who avows, or says (or makes known), he is homosexual will be out. Nothing has changed in this. Boy Scouts has been quite clear that 'an avowed homosexual' is not a proper role model for teenage boys. And the vast majority of scout parents support that.
And scouts indicated quite clearly this year that the homosexual policy would NOT be subject to local option choices.
And just for some of his deeper thinking on this overall topic, I have found this continually interesting.
Best....
I wouldn't say that the crisis with the Catholic clergy shows any such thing. For one thing, up to this point, people have been a lot more careful in ensuring that their daughters weren't alone around priests than their sons. People found the problem with heterosexual molestation obvious; they weren't nearly as worried about homosexual molestation, since they didn't see it as anywhere near as likely.
For another thing, we don't know anything about what the incidence of heterosexual molestation is, so we can't compare it with the more publicized homosexual molestation.
I'm not saying that the chance is greater, or lesser. I'm saying that the evidence to prove your assertion doesn't exist, because there's no equivalent group of heterosexual men allowed to be alone with teenage girls to compare it to.
Absolutely true. Of course, that presumes that the kids know that the leader involved is homosexual. If not, then no harm done. I believe that National is recognizing this when they say "avowed homosexuals" are banned, as opposed to "all homosexuals".
Avowed means what it means. Someone who avows, or says (or makes known), he is homosexual will be out.
To who? His boyfriend? His next door neighbor? His priest? The members of the Unit Committee? A newspaper reporter?And what if he doesn't say anything? What if he just shows up at meetings and outings and never references his "significant other"? Or, what if he doesn't say anything, but his "significant other" shows up to drop him off and pick him up? Or, what if he gives his boyfriend a kiss hello/goodbye? Where's the line? What constitutes "make known"? I personally would say that "avowed" would be in effect if the kids knew, but outside of that it's not clear. It's certainly not clear to the local Councils, since varying criteria are being used across the country, and National is certainly well aware of this.
Nothing has changed in this. Boy Scouts has been quite clear that 'an avowed homosexual' is not a proper role model for teenage boys. And the vast majority of scout parents support that.
Two-thirds to 3/4 of Boy Scout parents said on a survey that they wouldn't want a homosexual as leader for their son. However, either it wasn't asked, or wasn't reported, whether or not they cared if a unit their son wasn't in had a homosexual leader. So somewhere around 1/4 to 1/3 of Scouting parents don't care if their own kid has a homosexual leader, and I'd presume an even larger percentage doesn't care if someone else's kid has a homosexual leader. Kids have very little exposure to leaders in other units.
And [National Council] indicated quite clearly this year that the homosexual policy would NOT be subject to local option choices.
Yes, National made this quite clear. What's not clear is how National reached this decision, who was allowed to participate in it, and who wasn't. Note carefully that I'm not proposing that anyone not already in Scouting should be allowed to participate in such a decision; but it's not at all clear that even all members of Scouting were given representation.
Absolutely correct and justifiable. We work very hard to make the Rednecks and troglodytes feel guilty and really don't have the energy left to put up with some of the inconveniences of our crusade. It is akin to giving lots of dough to charity; you don't feel nearly so badly about throwing a drunken, filthy homeless man out into the street off your lawn. We of course, do not kick him.
Hi, Cato, how ya doin'?
I would say if the kids knew, that would be an out. But what about the parents, RonF? Is it acceptable to have a homosexual scoutmaster known to committee members but not to the parents? I don't think so.
The two surveys I saw showed 75% to 80% didn't want homosexual scout leaders. Mark my words, once homosexual leaders are allowed, immense, unrelenting and unfair PC pressure will be put on every single troop in this nation. You will end up with a rift in scouts, just like in Great Britain.
Puhleeze, RonF. The liberal media has been scouring cases of molestation all throughout the Catholic Church, hoping to find more than the very few cases of heterosexual molestation. You are living in a blind world if you can't see from the Catholic Church crisis that homosexual men have a far higher likelihood of molesting teens than do heterosexual men. Again, a MINORITY of priests (homosexual men) have committed the vast, vast majority of molestations - against teenage boys. And on average, homosexual men manage to molest far more teenage boys per molester than do heterosexual men girs. Homosexual men are far less restrained in their molestatory inclinations than are heterosexual men. Believe what you will. But you're living in a dream world if you don't see this.
Am glad we agree on this.
I agree with this. Should "local option" come into being (although the current policy by National is that it's not an option), I would think that if there are gay leaders in a unit, the unit committee would have to make this fact known to the parents.
You're right. I figure that if the BSA said, "O.K., it's up to local sponsors to decide if homosexuals are sufficiently moral to lead youth," you'd have the same legal challenges that the BSA has already faced, only to specific units instead of National. It's going to be no news to the community that, say, an LDS stake or a Baptist church wouldn't allow a gay man to be Scoutmaster. So they're not going to worry about their reputation. Legal suits on restriction of their use of public property won't go far. Remember that when such suits are brought, National steps in and joins it's resources to the defense.
The one thing I fear, and I admit it's very possibly a show stopper, is that a sheer multiplicity of suits would drain the BSA, since there are many different juristictions that suits might be brought in. The only thing I can argue against that is that such suits could be brought now against National via the local Councils, and they haven't.
You will end up with a rift in scouts, just like in Great Britain.
You're right on that. There would be a rift. For that reason, as well as others, I don't recommend the immediate implementation of "local option". The effects of implementation, and the process needed to do it would first have to be determined. What would happen? It's rumored that the LDS has said that they'd immediately withdraw from the BSA. Is that true? If so, what would the ramifications be? Would anyone else quit (as opposed to simply not admitting homosexuals to their units)? Would there be others who might join?
One thing that would be different in the U.S., as opposed to Britian, is that here in the USA the BSA has exclusive rights (except with regards to the GSUSA) to the words "Scouts", "Scouting", etc. That will help. But there'd certainly be losses on both the institutional and individual scales.
Is it right to exclude homosexuals from leadership roles in a youth organization? I can certainly make that decision for my own son's unit. Should I make that decision for somebody else's son's unit? Or should that unit have the right to make that decision for themselves? And if they do so, does that mean that if I disagree with them, I shouldn't be in the same organization? There's certainly already people in leadership positions in other units that I think are unfit, on the basis of their behavior and beliefs, to be leaders. Racist beliefs come immediately to mind....
RonF - What you are having trouble with is that Boy Scouts, as an organization, has taken the clear stand that it is not one that believes that a homosexual man (you know, a man who is much more likely than not to engage in anal sex, have multiple sexual partners, to have begun sexual activity in his teenage years, etc. etc.) is the appropriate example for impressionable teenage boys. It's the same with the atheism thing. Just as Boy Scouts believes it's better for scouts to have a scoutmaster who believes in God, Scouts believes it's better for a scout to have a heterosexual (i.e., sexually normal) man as a leader and role model for kids. That is what scouts believe. (And the majority clearly agrees with them.) If one believes that, why would you turn over kids (for any reason) to those you believe are inappropriate role models? - Just because the organization's under attack from rabid gay activists? Just because gays have political clout? Would you turn over kids to alcoholic scoutmasters, if you thought (correctly) that such wouldn't make good role models? Every older Boy Scout I know knows (correctly) that the majority of homosexual men engage in anal intercourse - a dirty, disgusting, germ-ridden, disease-spreading and dangerous practice that is the predominant reason for the spread of AIDs all around this country. How can you possibly defend having as a scoutmaster a man who represents the 'normality' or 'acceptability' or 'wholesomeness' of that practice? And if you believe it would be wrong to do so, how can you defend others doing it? You need to make a moral decision. Is it OK or not? If you come down on the side of it's not, then support the scouts wholeheartedly for their moral stand. If you think it's OK, then fight the scouts or drop out and form your own homosexual scouts organization. But you're sitting on the fence, mired in the bureaucratic conundrums of things like what exactly avowed means. You need to decide what you believe and have the courage of your convictions. You agreed with me earlier that if scouts knew a scoutmaster were homosexual, that would be akin to condoning anal intercourse. Is it ever OK to condone anal intercourse (and other common homosexual sexual practices) to impressionable teenage boys? Be strong, RonF.
C'mon, RonF. The implication that racism is akin to moral decisions on homosexuality doesn't pass the laugh test. As Colin Powell has pointed out, the color of ones skin is an absolutely benign characteristic. If homosexuality were benign, we wouldn't have a full-blown AIDs crisis in this country, we wouldn't have the 20-year short life span of homosexuals, we wouldn't have literally thousands of teenage boys molested and raped in the Catholic Church. Sexuality in general is not always benign, and is one of the strongest compulsions know to man. Scouts, divided into boys and girls, is designed to be a place where such compulsions do not come into play. You are bidding for the eventual sexualization of scouts.
If you follow the Catholic threads, the Wanderer, and even the NTY, you'll see that over 90% of the Catholic molestations involved homosexual priests molesting teenage boys. Do you not think the liberal media would just love to be able to honestly refute that? They haven't, because they can't. Just the Boston diocese by itself has over 100 homosexual priests being investigated for homosexual abuse. Don't you think the Boston Globe (the most gay-friendly newspaper in the US) would be publishing stats on girls molested if it could? Here in New Jersey, just following the stories in the papers, I've heard of exactly two female molestations. All the rest (and we've had scores of them) have been homosexual in nature.
Sure, I agree that that's likely been a factor. But molestors are notorious for finding ways to their victims. It most often involves building up trust with naturally trusting parents, and with the kids themselves. While it may have been a factor, it's quite clear that if homosexual men had not been admitted to the priesthood in such great numbers, there would be no Catholic Church crisis in this country right now. The Catholic Church must decide - a queerized priesthood, or a priesthood that's safe for teenage boys. Actually, since I don't think it's going to give up the queerized priesthood anytime soon (until far more devastation occurs), I believe it should adopt Boy Scout type policies - no known homosexual men in contact with teenage boys, no priests alone with children, and films to all Catholic kids warning about molestors. Of course, that won't be done either. All this is because the Catholic Church (my Church), places the welfare of kids last. My sons are a hundred times safer in the Boy Scouts than with a Catholic priest.
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.