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.
It can't be. But I will predict for you (you heard it here) that gay activists will NEVER be satisfied with anything scouts does, short of condoning homosexuality in all its facets, repudiating anyone who has religious beliefs proscribing homosexual conduct, allowing scouts to engage in homosexual sex once above the age of consent, etc. etc. You make a move on local option. They'll applaud and then start attacking again. Scouts has actually done quite well. They've staved off the homosexual onslaught without significantly denting their ranks, without being mean or divisive, and by simply stating and upholding their moral convictions.
From what I understand from reading articles and such (though I don't know the details), a majoirty of members of the national Boy Scout board in Great Britain pushed though a resolution a couple of years ago allowing homosexual scoutmasters and scouts. No debate was heard prior to the vote. Immediately in the aftermath, there was a schism in the organization, with a little under 1/2 forming a new scouting organization which banned homosexual scoutmasters. So, basically, as I understand it, there are two separate scout organizations in Great Britain.
The policy is that no 'avowed' (i.e. known) homosexuals are allowed. The Boy Scouts recognizes that it can't know who is homosexual if someone wants to hide that. But if it becomes apparent that they are, they're out. It thus also means that any kind of homosexual behavior in front of the boys is not tolerated.
It isn't self deception. Not in all cases, anyway.
Left-wing tolerance" and "diversity" rhetoric is NOT about "tolerance" OR "diversity" : it's about creating "discord" for the purpose of "controlling" the masses.
Well, in the US, the Boy Scouts membership is slowly increasing. In the wake of the homosexual controversy, it's estimated that it lost a couple of % in otherwise-membership in the last couple of years. This squares with the Cub pack and Boy Scout troop in our area, where out of some 130 families or so, we lost about three directly as result of this issue. But also, the membership in the troops in our town has suddenly accelerated, to the point where we've had to add a fourth troop in our town. Personally, I think there were just a few families who felt strongly that Boy Scouts should allow homosexual scoutmasters. Then there were some who just didn't want to be associated with the controversy (especially since a homosexual group in our town was paiting everyone who disagreed with them as 'haters' and 'bigots.' Now that those families see that the vast majority simply rejects the homosexual demands, they are coming back. I can tell you that no one in our town (that I know of) 'hates' homosexuals. Most subscribe to the live-and-let-live ethic. But the vast, vast majority of parents in our town (suburban New Jersey) are (rightfully) concerned about homosexual molestation issues, do not want homosexual behavior modeled for their teenage sons (like men talking about other men in a sexual attraction way, or kissing partners in front of their kids), and do not want homosexual ideology promoted to their kids (men having anal sex with men is perfectly normal, etc.). This is not hate, just common sense. Finally, many in our community have honest religious objections to homosexual behavior. So, in the end, Boy Scouts, in my mind, has fared very well through all of this. Without being 'hateful' and constantly repeating that it respects others' points of view, the scouts has held firm, received the imprimatur of the Supreme Court, has received the support of Congress to be able to meet in schools, and has still has a growing membership. That's not bad. Homosexual groups have done themselves a great harm in promoting homosexual scoutmasters. It's stupid on their part. They need to be tolerant toward others as they demand that others be toward them.
I personally would prefer that they adopt such a system. I don't believe there's any good reason for a homosexual to be a scoutmaster - and there are lots of good reasons for them not to be. I do not ever want my sons to have a homosexual scoutmaster. The scouts' policy is already a compromise policy, saying essentially that if you're homosexual and feel so strongly that you want to be involved with other peoples' teenage boys, then OK - as long as you keep it to yourself - in every way. But of course that doesn't satisfy the homosexuals. There are many homosexual molestors (Boy Scouts had a huge problem with such before implementing its current policies - no avowed homosexuals, warning films to all scouts, never one adult allowed alone with kids, etc.), and many homosexuals are just champing at the bit to get into scouts to 'normalize' homosexuality and to get young men 'comfortable' with it. Most parents say: NO WAY.
Exactly. You can do whatever you want in your home. But homosexuals have no intrinsic right to be involved in the raising of my sons and to take them on overnight campouts with parents absent. Period.
Yeah, it was. But scouts also puts a premium on having scoutmasters and fathers involved who model being good husbands and fathers, and who model basic masculinity. A lot of the kids on my sons' troop come from broken families; some have emotionally abusive parents; some have serious confidence problems. Strong male role models for these kids does them a world of good.
Fair enough. But I believe it is mandatory to offer to kids and parents the option of watching "A Time to Tell." And it is an essential tool, in my opinion, for helping kids to beware of homosexual molestors. Of course, it is extremely sad and disheartening that kids should need to be exposed to such.
You bet. The goal of the diversity-mongers is not to get you to tolerate others and to respect their beliefs (which is something the Boy Scouts assiduously teaches), but rather to force you to accept the idea that anything is just as good as anything else (like the idea that man-to-man anal intercourse is just a 'good' as normal sexuality, or that a belief in God is just as 'good' as no belief in God, etc. etc.). The diversity-mongers want to force you to say that nothing you believe is right or good, and that you should not have the temerity to defend your beliefs as such. They want anything to be acceptable (even with regard to your kids), and they brand you with horrible epithets should you have the guts to disagree. Well, the Boy Scouts disagrees (and has had the guts to do so). The Boy Scouts does believe that certain things are better than others, and they promote those things. That drives the intolerant diversity-mongers into fits of craze.
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.