![boyscout_logo1[1]](https://gerardnadal.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/boyscout_logo11.jpg?w=500&h=486){kind=logo}
It is said that when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain made his pact with Hitler, Winston Churchill arose in Parliament and said that Camberlain had a choice between dishonor and war, and that having chosen the former he would inherit the latter as a consequence. Thus it was today when the Boy Scouts of America’s national leadership voted by over 60% to embrace openly gay scouts, a vote that ignored the over 60% of 200,000+ leaders who responded negatively to a survey we all received.
In other words, the fix was in.
The great compromise today was that gay scouts would be permitted, but gay leaders would not. It was as gutless and cowardly a compromise as was the vote being announced the evening before the long Memorial Day weekend. These ‘leaders’, lacking the courage to take on themselves the full responsibility to radically transform the Boy Scouts of America, simply kicked the can down the road, leaving the rest of the job for the courts in the spate of inevitable lawsuits that will follow.
Much will change now. This isn’t a simple, “live and let live” policy. The chartering organizations with strong religious prohibitions will be forced to accept gay scouts and not speak against their chosen orientation or risk the sensitivity training that follows homosexualism wherever it finds a home. They will not be permitted to exclude gay scouts.
There will now be pressure to rewrite the program, such as the Family Life merit badge book to include gay and lesbian marriages, and here is where the new agenda will be shoved down the throats of every boy in scouting, especially as Family Life is a required merit badge for the rank of Eagle Scout.
Let’s be clear about what it is that all boys will be expected to embrace. In lesbian unions and marriages a father is regarded as entirely unnecessary in the life of a child. Two women are just as good, and even better. Similarly, in homosexual marriages and unions a mother is entirely unnecessary. Two men are just as good, and even better. Those new social situations will be held out as the moral equivalent of heterosexual marriage. If attempts are made to fight this moral equivalence, such attempts will be regarded as hostile rejection of the scout or his family situation, a hostile rejection that is now incompatible with the new membership reality.
To do other would be to treat gay scouts and gay/lesbian marriage as second-class citizenry.
Thus we see the complete incompatibility between the homosexualist agenda and traditional morality. Both cannot coexist in a given institution. Each sees the other as immoral and incompatible with civility and liberty.
Today, traditional Christianity, Judaism, and Islam lost big.
Many respond to the argument put forth above that many children in homes afflicted by divorce also live without either a mother or a father, and that gay/lesbian unions are no different in this regard, and even better, as there are two loving parents in the gay marriage to the one embittered divorcee in the straight home. But morally, this is fallacy. It is generally understood that divorce represents the failure of a moral good, namely heterosexual marriage, and that children raised in a single-parent home without the other gendered parent is a tragic consequence of that failure.
In the gay/lesbian marriages the opposite gender is regarded as unnecessary in the life of a child and this is not only NOT the failure of a moral good, but is in fact a celebrated principle of the lifestyle.
Indeed, much will now change. This blog post will be denounced as hate speech by many, and that shows how fidelity to Catholic moral teaching will now be regarded by the Boy Scouts of America. And where that is concerned, the National Catholic Committee of the Boy Scouts must be singled out for their weak and measured position throughout the run-up to this vote. Would that they had the firmness of our Baptist Brethren.
In our Scout Oath we say:
On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country, and to obey the Scout Law. To help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.
Duty to God requires not embracing that which is taught by His Church as mortal sin. In order to make the gay scouts feel at home, straight scouts will simply have to accept moral equivalence. When those gay scouts become Eagle Scouts and become young adults, will we suddenly turn on them and keep them away?
Finally, if two-thirds of the leaders nationally opposed this move, why did two-thirds of the National Council ignore our concerns?
Today we witnessed the death of honor in scouting. Having chosen dishonor, the National Council will inherit war as a consequence.
Coming Home 
If this were simply about allowing homosexual young men to take part in Scouting to learn virtues and skills and other such good things, I would not want to exclude them.
However, you and I know that this is all about ramming the homosexual agenda down the throats of our youth, and stamping out any sense of virtue. Scoutmasters cannot be openly gay? Please. Who are these folks trying to kid?
I though of your Joseph when I heard about this. By your account, the Boy Scouts have done wonders for him (and his Dad, too!). I’m sorry, Gerry. I’m guessing that you and Regina are reconsidering Joseph’s involvement. Hopefully there will be enough concerned parents to form another scouting group, comparable to the American Heritage Girls, who were formed in answer to the feminist/left wing agenda in the Girl Scouts.
We have much, much farther to fall before this is over. The fall won’t be finished in my lifetime, I’m sad to say. The Supreme Court decision on gay “marriage” is coming up soon. And it’s not going to be in favor of morals, natural law, and religious freedom. Buckle up!
Grief. Sorrow. Anger. It’s always been about boys. Queering our boys.
What happens when the openly gay boy scout starts wearing a dress?
A very sad day for an organization whose values represented something constant. Now, they’ve caved in and will never be the same. By the way, I had neighbors who were lesbians. One of them dressed to look like a man and the boy they were raising (one of the women was the biological mother) called the masculine looking woman “Dad”. Gender confusion to say the least and extremely unhealthy for the boy. The boy eventually left to live with his biological father. This is the same sort of confusion that will permeate the Boy Scouts of America.
My heart is broken. Thank you for speaking truth.
Good perspective, however the BSA is not a Catholic Christian organization. It has been permeated with peer pressures and temptations in other regards since I was a member in the 60s and 70s. Anti- Catholicism, smoking, substance abuse & drinking, pornography were common from 11-12 year old on up. Now homosexuality get officiated and out of the closet? Moral relativism erodes. I wouldn’t recommend Catholic parents set their sons free in the BSA unless they are themselves the leaders and willing to instill the missionary challenge of evangelizing the culture.
Fabulous words from Mr. Nadal! Scouting used to be about not getting lost, among other things. Well WE have just committed them to the wilderness without the most important compass of all. WE, as a society have failed them and WE will pay dearly!
Yet another reason to seek God’s mercy and forgiveness for America.
This is painful. My husband has been an Eagle since ’72. I was a leader in a cub pack in a Catholic sponsored unit. We were the chairs of our local Catholic Committee, approved by then Cardinal O’Connor. Together, we have almost 70 years in Scouting!
I do not understand how the National Committee can even say the Oath today. And if we cannot lead them in being moral, how can they follow?
If you are indeed, considering starting a ‘heritage’ group, please let me know what I can do to help.
And the thing that is so sad about this is that those young boys are not at all interested in sticking their penis into someone’s dirty rectum – and may never be. God help us. Will they put that in the handbook with pictures for a badge?
[…] Gay Scouting and the Death of Honor: It is said that when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain made his pact with Hitler, Winston Churchill arose in Parliament and said that Camberlain had a choice between dishonor and war, and … […]
Pity that you wouldn’t extend the same kindness and openness to gay scouts as BSA has shown your son.
Has it occurred to you that maybe gay people don’t have some kind of hideous hidden agenda to corrupt your children, but that they too are seeking the kind of normal, boring middle class existence that most of us value? If marriage and the Boy Scouts represent tradition and stability, closing these institutions off to gay people makes it less possible for them to integrate and lead functional, productive lives.
Sarah,
On this blog, people are expected to deal in truth and not glossy, fictionalized interpretations. You invoke my son, and do so rather thoughtlessly.
Yes, scouting has welcomed and embraced him, however…
I can’t seem to recall autistic children and adults carrying signs showing Cardinal O’connor in a mitre side-by-side with a condom with the caption, “know your scumbags.”
I can’t recall a time when autistic people disrupted mass every Sunday (or any Sunday) at St. Patrick’s Cathedral as the gays did for years, because the Church would not alter its teaching on the right use of sex.
I can’t recall ever hearing autistic people desecrating the Eucharist as the homosexuals did in December, 1988, because the Church would not alter its teaching on the right use of sex.
Even though autistic people have a medically diagnosed handicap ( which gays don’t), they don’t militate for sensitivity training for those who might mock them.
I’ve never seen autistic people march past Cathedrals chanting “Shame, shame,shame,” and making obscene gestures, including crotch, grabbing, mooning, and simulated masturbation, as I’ve seen the gays do at St Patrick’s Cathedral during their gay pride parades.
That’s the tip of the iceberg.
No hideous agenda? You’re either ignorant or a dupe.
@Sarah~ With all due respect, please go and peddle your Progressive Cult of “Inclusiveness” elsewhere. Mr. Nadal uses the perfect word to describe your ilk, “Dupe”. I might edit it slightly to expose the reality of what your ignorance has invited, “Useful Dupes”. Scouting was never about one’s sexuality. To make it so sets the stage rather nicely for the merit badge of “narcissism”, don’t you think?
Thankfully the Scouts aren’t a Carhol
ACT UP was protesting Cardinal O’Connor’s stance on the teaching of safe sex in public schools. To the extent that Archdiocese overstepped its bounds in attempting to shift public school policy, ACT UP intruded on a Church ceremony. By the way, as shocking and irreverent as ACT UP was at the time, they succeeded in changing the country’s HIV research agenda and expanding access to health care for society’s most marginalized.
But last I checked, gay youth don’t have to pledge their commitment to a highly militant activist organization (which is now all but defunct) when they come out. We are talking about adolescents here, Gerard, and you’re nuts to think that, by advocating for openness and tolerance of its children, gay rights movements are trying to “corrupt” yours.
Sarah,
Gay rights activists preach tolerance, but demonstrate none of it themselves, as evidenced by their desecrations. Rgarding your inflated opinion of ACT UP, letme set the record straight.
ACT UP seized upon a single study that showed nonoxynol-9, a spermicide, inhibi ted the AIDS virus in test tubes. based on that they insisted on teaching that use of n-9 as an additional lubricant on condoms. They pressured health departments to follow this scheme, and so using n-9 lubricant on condoms became the received wisdom in the age of AIDS.
The problem, of course, was that the concenation of n-9 used in test tubes to inhibit the virus was far greater than humans could endure. Worse yet, the petroleum jelly in the early n-9 weakened the latex, causing them to rupture more frequently. Worse still, the n-9 burned holes in the vaginal and rectal epithelia of people making frequent use of condoms, especially prostitutes and gay men.
Thus, the ACT UP method led to condom rupture, followed by HIV entry through portals burned in the epithelial tissue by the n-9. ACT UP did more to spread HIV than any other group, and Cardinal O’Connor was right to resist their agenda, as moral issues are always rooted in physical and psychological realities.
Even the New York Times chronicled a different story in the 1980’s. Read the four-part series here.
As for “safe” sex, the gay community dropped that in the early 90’s and quietly switched to the less absolute, safer sex. The moral compass of scouting points away from the homosexualist agenda, which has wrought devastation on their own community. Let them keep it.
That’s completely disingenuous.The Church would have opposed the use of any contraception, with or without spermicides. Its opposition had nothing to do with public health and everything to do with policing public morality.
But ACT UP is a red herring. The young gay kid who wants to become a fully integrated member of his community has scant to do with the events at St. Patrick’s or fights for antiretroviral drug research or decades-old debates about safer sex. And why, pray tell, should the BSA’s inclusion policy be informed at all by the sexual teachings of a particular religious organization? I myself am not Catholic, and while I care little whether you live according to the dictates of your faith, I disagree with its stance on matters related to sex and sexuality. Why should Catholicism enjoy a monopoly in decision making about these issues?
Who’s being intellectually dishonest now Sarah? I would say that the passing of the torch from Jesus to Peter is sufficient evidence as to the qualifications of the Catholic Church on all things moral…certainly to those of whom morality matters. But when Progressives themselves aren’t qualified to raise the bridge, they tend to lower the river instead. Nice try! 😉
Sarah, ACT UP’s relevance has direct bearing on the whole issue. This is not simply admitting all children to scouting, which the Supreme Court ruled in 2,000 we have a right not to do. The orientation carries with it expression of the orientation, which includes gay scouts expressing romantic attraction to other scouts (membership goes up to age 18, so they’re not all little boys). That’s morally unacceptable to scouts and scouters from accross the religious and secular spectrum. It’s behavior that will alienate straight kids and scouters and invoke the activists with their agenda.
I’m proud of Cardinal O’Connor and my Church. As O’Connor always said, good morality is good medicine. And good morality, along with duty to God is at the heart of scouting, as expressed in the Scout Oath and Law. At least until this past Thursday.
I do feel the need to correct my earlier assertion that Progressives aren’t morally “qualified”…rather, for them its a matter of self-disqualification by removing themselves from the bonds of moral obligation. Trust me…I can relate to those temptations…but I can’t get my heart to follow me there. Please search your heart a little deeper Sarah.
One reason I never let either my two sons join BSA was because I support the “homosexualist agenda,” so I can only applaud their latest move as a step in the right direction. Still, I never thought scouting was about sex –, in the words of a commenter above, ” those young boys are not at all interested in sticking their penis into someone’s dirty rectum” (or someone’s dirty vagina, for that matter).
However, I think in a free society, a private organization should be able to set its rules for membership. I didn’t expect the BSA to conform to the values I want to teach my children anymore than I expected their Catholic school’s teachings to conform to my personal opinions on healthy sexuality. That’s my job, at home.
I can understand why some parents might now shun the BSA, for the opposite reason as I did before: They want a group that reinforces their family’s values. But I can also understand why some parents might choose to keep them in the BSA (as I kept mine in Catholic school), and simply provide them with supplemental teaching at home — e.g., “This organization fundamentally believes X, but your parents believe Y,” etc.
[…] Death of Honor, as Dr. Gerard M. Nadal so appropriately defines it here, is just another casualty in a long list of targets by those who have waged war on God and morality […]
Inspired by the good Dr. Nadal~ http://shutupnsing.wordpress.com/2013/05/26/scouting-was-about-not-getting-lost/ Thanks!
Great post Lisa! Just curious as to what you believe the “Homosexualist Agenda” to be?
Shutupnsing, I called it that, in quotation marks, because that’s what Dr. Nadal called it. I support the idea that my gay friends should enjoy the same rights and legal benefits as heterosexuals.
I don’t believe churches should be forced to marry same-sex couples any more than they should be forced to re-marry divorced people, or people in other situations that don’t meet a particular church’s criteria for marriage. I think all legal marriages should be civil unions, in fact, and the word “marriage” should be entirely given over to churches.
And as I said, I think the BSA had a legal right, as a private group, to bar openly gay people as it saw fit — as well as a right to change its collective mind, and its rules.
I have to say…you are refreshingly reasonable Lisa! 🙂
Thank you, but if we exchanged views on other subjects, you might not think so. I did notice that when I recently started putting my full name on my blog comments, I spend more time carefully choosing my words.
Nonsense. It would be inappropriate to express romantic attraction, whether homosexual or heterosexual, at a scouting event in the first place, so this is really a non-issue. Public schools somehow manage to educate both gay and straight students and somehow the world doesn’t implode.
Gay adolescents need all the support they can get. They need to feel valued as members of their communities and not totally defined by their sexuality.
Sarah,
I love how gays insist on getting totally defined by their sexuality and scream about how they’re not totally defined by their sexuality. Do you have a gay child? Why the vitriol?
I don’t see any vitriol at all in Sarah’s reply. Her point about inclusiveness is a good one, and is similar to how I compared BSA to my kids’ Catholic school. My kids were included even though their parents weren’t Catholic (or weren’t “real” Catholics, anyway), but this didn’t define them. They were accepted along with the kids of divorced parents, and kids from “two-daddy” families. They were educated along with the “real” Catholic kids. And some of it stuck — years later, one of them still goes to mass. The school had every right to exclude our family, but thankfully, it did not.
Gay adolescents do need all the support they can get. Many of them feel marginalized to begin with, and it’s sad for them to be excluded from social groups. Private groups have a right to exclude them, but I don’t see how this does anyone any good.
I am not against gay people. I pray for them. I am totally disgusted with the Gay agenda be shoved down our throats. I am a devout Catholic who adheres to the moral teachings of the Church. As far as I am concerned the gay agenda is another attempt by sick people to destroy the tradition family in our country. Homosexuality is a sickness and is not only a sin, but is an act against natural law. The BSA was the last Bastion of moral teachings left in our country. Yes, they the leadership only allowed gay boys to become scouts and ban adults who are openly gay from being leaders, but we all know that the ban won’t last long. I see the end of scouting as a moral teacher coming soon.
Lisa, I know exactly what Dr. Nadal is referring to and it is best understood in witnessing your energy around this issue compared to Sarah’s. You are able to demonstrate compassion for both sides. In Sarah’s world, one person’s “rights” require another person’s submission. Scouting was never about “self-interest”, but we are on the path to the merit badge of “narcissism”.
Shutupnsing, I see no difference in any “energy” between the way Sarah expresses her opinions and the way I do, and I frankly don’t see how the world she wants differs from the one I want. Maybe she framed her opinion a bit more critically than I did, but she made essentially the same points, that sexuality isn’t part of the purpose of the BSA, and that a policy of welcoming inclusiveness is more constructive.
And don’t one person’s “rights” always require another person’s submission, whenever values/morals clash?
I appreciate that you don’t. And I understand why you don’t Lisa. And yes, in an “immoral world”, the rights of one requires the submission of others. But that is the “Zero-Sum” Illusion the Progressives weave so well. The end does not justify the means. Consequences are already taking their toll…denial is the greatest myopia.
But in what you would call a “moral world,” it’s also true.
For instance, I assume you’re pro-life. In a perfectly pro-life world, the right of a pregnant woman facing serious health issues to do what is in her own best interest is subordinate to her unborn child’s right to life. This requires another person’s submission.
And in the case of the BSA, the right of a private group to determine its membership qualifications is by definition going to exclude someone — that is, it’s going to interfere with someone’s “right” to join it. The BSA is either going to turn away youths who openly identify as gay — or else it will alienate those people who want to exclude such youths on principle, to support “traditional” heterosexual families.
I also don’t see “denial” anywhere. I look around at the modern world with clear eyes, and I like a lot of what I see. (I haven’t lived in America for a while, though.)
Who says a person has a “right” to join an organization whose very oath they do not subscribe to and intend to violate by definition? And if you have lived here as long as many of us have (60 years for me in 2 days!), you would notice the trajectory, trust me.
Happy birthday! I’m a decade or so behind you, but I rely on my grandmother’s testimony of what life was like in the “good old days,” when women had fewer rights and their husbands got to call the shots. I also remember observing some pretty ugly happenings, during my 1960’s/70’s childhood. The present world isn’t perfect — far from it — but overall, I’m glad I’m raising kids now, instead of then. So I guess that makes me a living, breathing part of your “trajectory.”
Doesn’t a private group have the right to change its oath? It’s a social group, not a religion based on dogma. And even religions change — within my lifetime, people were excommunicated for marrying non-Catholics.
Remember the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2319?
“Catholics are under an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Ordinary: (1) who contract marriage before a non-Catholic minister contrary to canon 1063, 51, 1; (2) who contract marriage with an explicit or implicit agreement that all children or any child be educated outside the Catholic Church; (3) who knowingly presume to present their children to non-Catholic ministers to be baptized; (4) who, being parents or taking their place, knowingly present their children to be educated or trained in a non-Catholic religion.”
Then in October 1970, Pope Paul VI said,
“The penalties decreed by canon 2319 of the Code of Canon Law are all abrogated. For those who have already incurred them the effects of those penalties cease, without prejudice to the obligations mentioned in number 4 of these norms.”
Just like that — lifted! A-bro-gated, bro! Excommunication revoked!
A few gay boy scouts seems like nothing, compared to that.
Thanks Lisa! Sure Oaths can be changed…just like Constitutions can be changed through the Amendment process. But that’s not what they did now is it? As for the Catholic Church, simply Google Bella Dodd to find the same Marxist finger prints that have led us to the place you experience as “liberating”. Brace yourself my friend…we are all about to get the bill for these follies!
My “Big Picture” 2 cents, for what it’s worth, is best summed up here… http://shutupnsing.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/the-weiner-in-the-coal-mine/
I’m generally not one to comment on blogs sites, but somehow I feel called to offer some thoughts based on random observations over the years. In my mind the boy scout historical progression from the 1960’s to today mirrors the same progression of a wounded catholic church. Regardless of what the constitution says or doesn’t say, homosexuals were members then as they are now. The difference being whether they are “allowed” to be overt about it. Don’t ask, don’t tell. The bottom line is that we are all human and often don’t practice what we preach. I know of a man in his mid-50’s who was exposed to the drug culture and pornography though a the boy scout troop leader in the 1960’s despite their constituion reinforcing good moral character. He is in sad shape today given the continuing poor choices in his life which began with the boy scouts. He was never able to overcome it. Conversely, I also know of a homosexual man pushing 60 who recently celebrated his silver anniversary in a committed homosexual relationship. Their example of 25 years of compromise through better or worse would put some heterosexual couples to shame given the dismal divorce statistics. Oh, did I mention, he made his career working as a lay member in the Catholic Church? For every homosexual Catholic priest accused of pedophilia, I’m sure there are many more homosexual priests remaining behind closed doors in prayer and service to the Lord. Love the sinner; hate the sin. I’m bothered by this black and white argument of Include gays or exclude gays. This is not an argument about individual members; it is an argument about policy. In my mind, the Catholic church (and the boy scouts) could and should embrace homosexual members without sacrificing their underlying moral principles. As long as the rules of engagement are clear, we can and should judge behaviors, not people. Only then will we be truly our brother’s keeper. Anything else becomes nothing more than an activist’s platform whether for or against. Just my two cents.
That strikes me as “naive” MM. “In my mind, the Catholic church (and the boy scouts) could and should embrace homosexual members without sacrificing their underlying moral principles.” – The same militancy that has just sacked scouting won’t let up until the complete and utter desecration of the Eucharist. The abundance of this great land is the direct result of the river of morality that was never forced on a single soul, but available to ALL! The secularists are legislating morality out of our lives at very turn, until there will be nothing but dry riverbeds. They are turning “Family” into insignificance…you give your flowery examples of your happy gay guy as some new social standard to aspire to. Neither the Church or Scouting are suggesting we do anything but LOVE the nice gay guy. What they are suggesting is that the social standard of a healthy society is the traditional family and a moral lifestyle. In a free society, if you do not subscribe to these values, don’t join the organizations that foster these values. There is nothing “nice” about forcing your immorality on others.
Wait…”neither the Church scouting nor scouting are suggesting we do anything but Love the nice gay guy…” …..by excluding him?
I’m teaching my kids to avoid that kind of “love” — either giving it to others, or accepting it themselves.
Absolutely yes to this part: In a free society, don’t join organizations that foster values to which you don’t subscribe. Some people will now join the BSA, while others will leave it.
I’m not sure you want a free society, though, Shutupandsing. It sounds to me, particularly after reading your blog, that you want a society based upon your own view of morality. And this is no surprise, because it’s what most people want. The problem is, our views differ. And that’s what makes life interesting.
With all due respect Lisa, your logic is inconsistent…which is the Liberal way, and the reason we are teetering on the brink of financial & social collapse. Does it mean that society doesn’t love you because it “excludes” you from the men’s room…or that God doesn’t love me because I sin? A truly free society can only exist, as we have for longer than any other (with same government) with a solid foundation of Judeo/Christian values…that has now been reduced to a heap of “subjective” mush…which ultimately supports nothing but corrupt politicians who thrive in such conditions. That’s far from interesting. That’s suicide!
Indeed, Shutupnsing, if I urgently need to use a restroom, society is surely failing to “love” me by imposing restrictions based on someone’s arbitrary notions of modesty. So when no unisex facilities are available, and urgency calls, I have been known to use the men’s room, if I must (and discreetly turn away from anyone who happens to be at the urinals). I believe this is far better than soiling myself in public, though others might disagree.
Anyway, my logic is actually pretty consistent — arbitrary exclusion serves no one, although as I said (and will say again). private groups have a right to do it as they see fit.
And you are never going to get me to agree that a “truly free society can only exist…with a solid foundation of Judeo/Christian values.” I have nothing against some of those very values, but I still prefer my societies secular, thanks. (Oh, nice typo — first I typed “sexular.”)
I currently live in a society that, like all, has its good/bad points. But it’s wonderful here in many ways, and not a single one of those ways has anything to do with Judeo/Christian values. Maybe a little Confucianism in the mix? But no Jews or Christians — or at least very few.
Suicide — yeah, we have lots of that over here, too. But I prefer it here in many ways to the country I left.
Then you need to own the mushy consequences which you never will. This morning at one of my networking meetings, a CPA comments on the IRS targeting citizens and groups on the basis of their beliefs. The Liberal in the room responds, “They (I’m assuming she meant Republicans or Conservatives??) will throw Obama to the wolves!” So here we have the government actually throwing people to the wolves…and the mindless response is whether the people will throw those governing to the wolves?? Where did you leave….the U.S.S.R. in 1960? With all due respect Lisa, you are not likely to get it if you haven’t by now.
Nope, I guess I don’t get it. Would you believe that there are lots of people who self-identify as liberal, who don’t condone what the IRS did, or what the Justice Dept. did to James Rosen of Fox News, or…well, I could type a dirty laundry list. But my point is that — while inconvenient for your “them-vs.-us” worldview, there are many people who don’t think that good/bad line up neatly along party lines, or along liberal/conservative lines, or even along religious/secular lines.
I think I’ll stick with not getting it, thanks. Ignorance is bliss. I’ll take the good wherever I see it, and try to help wherever I don’t.
I do in fact own the “mushy consequences.” I am living them. And I like them just fine.
You’re still refreshing…
I resemble that remark.
No vitriol here, just empathy.
Is seems that to Mourning Mom, Sarah, and I think Lisa, scouting is about scouting. At least to me it is, and should be. I find the the over-the-top nonsense by some gay activists annoying, disruptive, and unnecessary (to say the least), but I also see all that as a distraction, as Sarah does, from scouting. Just gimme that old-time scouting! Oh, and s a father of an autistic child (hypothetical, none in particular, just in general) might see scouting as a chance for his son’s normal integration, so might the dad of a gay child. Although I don’t know of any single case, but was a scout for a while in the Northeastern US, I do believe there was a time that an autistic child would have had a more difficult time getting into and/or maintaining productive ties with the scouts. It depends alot, of course, on the particular scout leader and pack. Anyway, times are a-changin’; not all for the good, not all for the bad, but they are a-changin’.
[…] used to cherish! Check out this thread on Dr. Nadal’s “Gay Scouting and the Death of Honor” here to see just how lost and divided we have […]
Well here’s where your “empathy” as led us Sarah…and please pt-109, tell us what is “not all for the bad” about our subversion. http://shutupnsing.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/our-subversion/
Um…in the linked post, you say, ” Check out this thread on Dr. Nadal’s “Gay Scouting and the Death of Honor” here to see just how lost and divided we have become!”
Lost? Divided? I see a pretty polite comment thread here.
Since when does Politeness imply awareness or unity? I had an old liberal friend reject my thesis on the basis of facebook “likes”…Words can describe your blindness, but they will never be able to make you see what you refuse to see.
My point is that it’s funny you think this comment thread is an example of something negative. Where you see evidence that we’re “lost and divided,” I see differences of opinion.
The problem is that you (Liberals) have a chronic tendency of not backing up your opinions with fact. As a result, the rest of us are forced to pay the price for your “opinions”. Your positions are indefensible, which is exactly why MSNBC is languishing in the ratings desert, while FOX has more viewers than they know what to do with…and why the IRS seeks to silence & suppress. You are like the gardener in love with the “pretty” weeds who blames the grocer for not putting enough vegetables on his shelf!
Ha, I’m not blaming anyone. I’m just living my life and raising my children according my liberal, secular, progressive values (any more good adjectives we can use there?), and I’m profoundly grateful that I live in a world in which I am able to do so. I hope others can live as they please, too — and that includes you, too, shutupnsing. And getting back to the original post, it includes the BSA, as well as the Catholic Church.
LOL…Yes, and we Know you would never impose your liberal, secular, progressive values on anyone! I have a bridge…
Hey, I sent my kids to a Catholic school when we lived in the US, and didn’t expect it to change, just for me. So why would I want to impose my values on you? I kept my boys away from the BSA — I didn’t take it to court, to force it to conform to my values.
There are certainly liberals who want to impose their values on others, and there are plenty of conservatives who try to do exactly the same. Neither side has a monopoly on this.
Sarah never answered your question.
“There are conservatives who try to do exactly the same.” ~ One example please.
Which question MaryGr?
Just one? Okay, how about the federal Defense of Marriage act?
Or do you mean one person? In that case, how about George Gilder? You probably know him, supply-sider, conservative economist, used to write speeches for Reagan — I read his popular book on capitalism when I was in high school. There are many areas on which he and I agree, believe it or not, but he’s still an anti-feminist who believes society would be better off if governments promoted policies to encourage women to stay out of the full-time work force until they were done raising children.
Nice try Lisa! The DMA is NOT an example of Conservatism “imposing” its values on others. Rather, it was government affirming the reality of the natural world and its natural laws. You may be free to break the laws of nature, which is clearly your inclination. You want to fight for spousal rights in “civil unions”, count me in. But when you seek to “redefine” marriage for the rest of us, you’ve become the imposers! I have no idea who Gilder is.
Why is it “clearly my inclination” to break the laws of nature? Are you saying I’m gay now? I do think homosexuality is in fact very natural, for homosexuals. And I have no use for the concept of “natural law,” because there are some nuts out there who claim my own non-white spouse and mixed-race children go against it. So yeah, ha, maybe it IS my “inclination” to break the laws of nature after all, depending on who is defining them.
And again, as I said above, why is the STATE in the marriage business? I think all legal “marriages” should be civil unions, in fact, and the word “marriage” should be entirely given over to churches. A marriage is a sacramental bond, for which some of us have no use — we just want the legal benefits.
I recommend you Google Mr. Gilder. I think you will like what you find.
shutupnsing: “…and please pt-109, tell us what is “not all for the bad” about our subversion.”
Answer: I’ve already told you, in essence. Sarah, Mourning Mom, and Lisa. Three intelligent, thoughtful and caring people, I’d say. They are a part of the people and minds of our future. Do I agree with everything they say. No, definitely not. But they are “not all for the bad,” eh? By the way, I like your name. Good advice, too!
hehehe…109, I get that a lot from my left-leaning friends. You don’t even realize your own “suppressive” response. I picked the name hoping to reveal exactly that. Lisa, I didn’t suggest that the gov should be in the marriage business…I only commented on what I believe they intended. The common thread I detect running through the four of you is that none of you are ready to own this…none of you really seem to stand for anything other than a sort of Laissez faire approach to life with no boundaries (for yourselves), but you are ready to prescribe them for others…kind of like your generous with other people’s money…you’re like quicksilver. You speak “libertarian” but then you surrender your liberty to Obama. You high-five this jackboot dictator because you think he has your interests at heart…and every single one of you will flee back into the shadows when it all comes apart.
How am I “ready to prescribe them for others?” I believe I said that private organizations/Churches should have the right to exclude people from their membership.
How did saying that I want my gay friends to enjoy the same legal rights I enjoy come across as my not “really seem to stand for anything?”
And what makes you think I’m “generous with other people’s money,” — particularly after I said above that I agree with some things a conservative economist has said?
Not all “liberals” are alike. But maybe we all look alike to a conservative? I suggest you look a little deeper.
Lisa…perhaps you’ll understand better after you’ve been here a while~ http://shutupnsing.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/a-facade-with-guns/
Where’s “here?” I already told you I don’t live in America. And if you mean, “here on earth,” I’m only a handful of years younger than you.
Because of where I DO live, and what I happen to do for a living, I think I understand the potential pitfalls of fiscal & monetary profligacy — perhaps even better than you do.
By the way, I like your pseudonym, too. But I’m using my real name — it’s not as clever, but I own my words. Every one of ’em.
I thought I read where you lived here having come from another country. If I may ask…where do you live and what do you do? I live in the Socialist Republic of NY and advise people how to manage their wealth…Hah! I just realized…that’s like setting up a blood bank booth at a vampire convention!! 🙂
You read incorrectly. I am originally from the state next to yours, but have lived most of my adult life, on and off, in Japan. We lived in San Francisco for 4 years a while back, and my kids went to a Catholic school there — great place, both the city and the school. I miss it.
I write about money. Mostly bonds.
The next time you’re in Kyoto, stop into Papa Jon’s…best cheesecake in the world! My friends Charlie & Miko own the place…give them my love and tell them to send me the tab! Now I understand you’re previous “watch Japan” comment…
Small world. I’ve seen those restaurants and your friend also used to own a place called “Knuckles,” where I went when I was studying at Doshisha University in 1985.
I married a Kyoto man, so I go down there a lot.
Awesome!
Lisa…Charlie & Mieko would know me as Paul “Chip” Murray…
🙂
PS~ I’d love to read some of your stuff…the “income” space is starting to get very…interesting.
I’ll probably be going to Kyoto in August, and we always spend New Year’s with the in-laws.
I work for a wire now, but used to work for a website (owned by Mr. Murdoch), so if you search my name, you can find plenty of my stories. But almost everything I write professionally is about markets — I reserve all of my radical social views for blog comment boxes. 😉
shutupnsing: “hehehe…109, I get that a lot from my left-leaning friends. You don’t even realize your own “suppressive” response.”
109 says: man, you’re babbling like an old lady on meth. your first sentence doesn’t say what “that” is, and I have no idea. the second sentence is no clearer. why would a guy think he’s making sense, dropping pearls of wisdom with every word, when he’s not? I know — you were high on a more powerful drug than meth, more addictive, and much more dangerous, a drug that is increasing in popularity around the world and is approaching terrifying new levels of abuse: Twaronite. If you were cogent before ingesting it, perhaps you see what this drug can do to your mind? Apparently you do not. Let this be a warning to you on the dangers of overindulgence.
Anyway, you think I’m left-leaning. That is the only point of yours I could discern. I’m not.
Pt-109, you lost me there. I agree with you that Shutupnsing jumps to conclusions sometimes, but when you started warning about a dangerous drug — even metaphorically — you stopped making sense yourself.
Perhaps you find this terrifying, but I happen to like my mind exactly the way it is: open, and wishing no one harm.
Chill pills are pretty cool some time 109…Yesterday was my Step-son’s Eagle ceremony (back to the point of this thread). He was the only one of the three scouts being honored who tipped his hat to the gay scout ruling. He and I agree to disagree here, but he spoke his heart in as honorable a fashion as any young man I’ve ever seen. I understand how a young man who has been academically malnourished on issues relating to our heritage, in particular, our founding documents…and raised as a Liberal Jew could only relate to this issue through the prism of “fairness”. What was Churchill’s famous saying…”A conservative in his teens may have no heart, but a liberal in his forties has no mind.”…or something to that effect.
shutupnsing, you raised a good boy, and, surprisingly, a good point; or was it Churchill’s? liberalism in adults is often a failure to mature politically. Lisa, I only said you were a “dangerous drug” for effect, blithely referring to your harmless knack for babble, and its apparent anesthetic effects on shutupnsing. (rhetoric…. now that can be dangerous.)
[…] « Gay Scouting and the Death of Honor […]
I think we’re all only trying to find our way…God, how did it get so complicated?
I’m sitting here thinking that on the surface it seems unreasonable to deny someone in urgent need a restroom the use of one not intended for their gender. And then I think further, and it occurs to me that a responsible adult would plan to use a bathroom long before the need was so desperate that one’s only recourse was to either soil oneself or to use a restroom not intended for their gender–one possibly already occupied by those of the opposite sex.
Perhaps that’s at the core of most moral issues our society is divided upon. Those who hold to a higher standard (particularly devout Catholics) do not use urgent biological compulsions as an excuse for behavior, particularly when it stands to impact others.
Others are far too often driven by biological compulsions, and see no reason responsibly control their behavior when last ditch desperate measures–whether it be using the mens’ restroom or getting an abortion–will suffice.
RandomThoughts, if you have never in your life needed a restroom in an unforeseen emergency, then I daresay you are very lucky.
I ask for your compassion for those of us who, despite responsibly planning ahead, have been known to face unpleasant situations, and made decisions that we felt were in the best interests of the majority, as well as ourselves.
The pregnancy metaphor is very apt because most of the times I resorted to using the men’s room were during my full-term pregnancies, i.e., “Don’t want an abortion? Then don’t have sex unless you’re open to children, and don’t get yourself raped! Don’t want to face a restroom emergency? Then don’t go shopping when you’re pregnant after drinking a large lemonade, and just expect to find a vacant restroom stall at the mall!”
(I also ought to also put in a word here defending my many friends who have chronic medical conditions that sometimes require urgent use of a restroom despite their best-laid plans, and yet who still strive to go out in public and lead full, active lives.)
In other words, I fail to see any good in meeting a “higher standard,” to appease the sensibilities of a few others — I think we can generally agree that we shouldn’t go around peeing on each other’s lawns, but beyond that, standards will differ.
The next time you are stricken with a sudden attack of food poisoning, and the only unoccupied restroom you can find has a sign for the other gender on the door, I wish you the willpower to live by the high standards you’ve set for others.
[…] Because the young man who has not been taught the story of Samuel here is as spiritually malnourished as the same young man who has been deprived of story of our founding is academically malnourished. An uninformed decision, as nice as it may seem, is a bad decision. And you know that it is a bad decision because persecution will be the fruit of this horrible decision. There have been 20,000 victims of Islamic inclusiveness since 9/11 with the beheading of Lee Rigby making the most recent headless-line. And all one needs to do is turn from Obama’s endless scandals to the Boy Scouts to behold the latest victim of Progressivism (in spite of 2/3 of scout leaders)…and the death of Honor. RIP […]
I have to say LT, I thought RT’s thoughts were very well stated…I myself have used the ladies room on occasion…with the blessings of the owner I might add. The problem with inclusiveness is the exclusion of common sense http://shutupnsing.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/the-exclusive-problem-with-inclusiveness/
I have had six pregnancies, and no, I have never in my adult life allowed myself to get to the point where I had to use a restroom so darned urgently that it overrode my desire to be considerate of the potential embarrassment to others. I simply would never walk into a men’s restroom while men were using it and just “discreetly turn away from anyone who happens to be at the urinals.” I’m kind of quirky that way; I think my need to pee is not superior to theirs’ for privacy.
Obviously there will be a minority of people who are dealing with incontinence, or random incidents of food poisoning, or whatever complete lack of control requires immediate restroom access, but that was not what was described earlier. I’m addressing the concept of simply wanting to do what one wants to do (in that case pee) regardless of who else might be affected by it.
My point is that the clash seems to be between an overwhelming “My needs and desires must come first” mentality and a “Consider others better than yourself” mentality (bonus points for anyone knowing that verse).
We dress our self-centeredness up in “inclusive” clothing, but underneath it’s a refusal to be tolerant of (much less respectful of) those whose morality is more substantive, and often based upon their firmly held religious beliefs. And that’s why I find the BSA ruling (to get back to Gerard’s topic) so dispiriting, and so symptomatic of our culture today.
Ah, but Random Thoughts, everyone’s body is different. I only had three full-term pregnancies (I don’t count any of mine that ended early, but I know everyone differs on that). Maybe you were able to anticipate your needs at every moment, but that does not mean that every other pregnant women can, at every moment. In my first full-term pregnancy, I was still getting used to the whole process — and the subsequent ones, I was often distracted by the needs of the other kids and didn’t always focus on my own. Your comment, in fact, reminds me of women who made off-hand comments that the reason I had c-sections was probably because I didn’t “try hard enough,” or was not sufficiently devoted to the goal of natural births — that it was clearly due to some failure on my part, that I “let my doctor talk me into a c-section” instead of begging him to let me try a little longer. I repeat, everyone’s body is different.
Your point is valid, about the “concept of simply wanting to do what one wants to do” — you just frame it in an unfortunate way, to imply that I pee in the men’s room ALL the time because it suits my convenience. You claim this is what was “described earlier,” but I don’t see myself saying that.
And I fail to understand how inclusiveness is a refusal to be tolerant of those with firmly-held religious beliefs, when I clearly said twice that private groups like the BSA and the Church have a right to exclude members as they see fit. In other words, my flavor of inclusiveness allows for your flavor of exclusiveness.
(Also, I’d disagree that my morality is “more substantive,” simply because it differs from yours, but we would argue that point forever, so you can just go ahead and call me “immoral” and I’ll learn to like it. Hmmm, I’m liking it already.)
Oops, I meant that my morality is NOT “more substantive.” Must be a Freudian slip, exposing my fundamental immorality. 😉
Lisa, you described walking (not dashing frantically while calling out “EXCUSE ME!”) into a men’s restroom and “discretely turning away from” the men urinating therein. How kind of you to allow them that modicum of privacy. Yes, I’m being sarcastic; you apparently are going to be adamant that you simply could not possibly control your bladder for even the moment or two it might take to call out, “Excuse me, gents, there’s a lady in desperate need of a restroom!” and allow the men to exit. No, your need was THAT compelling. Seriously?! The reality is you just don’t see the need for men and women to have separate restrooms, because it doesn’t bother you. Neither does the idea of open homosexuality in the Boy Scouts.
You brought up the example of peeing, and I’m attempting to call you out on the feebleness of the excuse. Countless women for centuries have been heavily pregnant and in need of a restroom. You are a woman who sees nothing wrong with walking in on men who are relieving themselves because your need, to you, trumps theirs. It doesn’t bother you that the men are rightfully expecting not to have a woman walk in while they’re in a vulnerable position with their penises exposed, and if they expressed outrage at your presence, no doubt you’d defend your “right” to be there.
My point, yet again, is this is a fundamental difference in society today. I’m of the sort who (to continue the weak analogy) thinks “Gee, I’m really preggers, and the litre of water I drank is going to go right through me, I’d better get to a restroom before I really need to go.” I don’t use my need to pee (or my need or desire to do anything else) as an excuse to impact others in ways that would conflict with their moral code.
Feel free to play the poor pregnant gal gotta pee card, but the issue goes way beyond a weak bladder, and indicates a far more profound weakness.
Ha, what you see as my “profound weakness,” I see as my strength.
Yes, I played the ” poor pregnant gal gotta pee card,” and guess what? The world didn’t end. No one expressed “outrage” at my presence — not even the poor men who were in a “vulnerable position with their penises exposed,” who no doubt are now weeping in their therapy sessions because a female dashed past their backs.
And what happens, as in the cases I describe, when I did plan ahead, and did anticipate my need to pee, yet all the women’s stalls were occupied, or, sometimes, as it were, being cleaned? I could plan ahead for my own needs, but that was no guarantee that facilities were always available when I needed them.
But you’re right, it’s not about peeing. It’s about the fact that I don’t mind homosexuals in the boy scouts, and I live in a country with lots of unisex restrooms and I think they’re a great idea.
In other words, I’m part of what you see as the problem with modern society, and I’m raising my kids to be part of it, too, because we like it better this way.
Lisa I need to address the absurdity of your position…I’ve come to like you personally. But if pee was hypocrisy, you’d be a racehorse…yes, you would be Hamiltonian! On my most recent blog in which I juxtaposed the “outing” of Jason Collins with the “Honor” of Woods & Doherty to make my point that the Progressives aren’t about “Inclusive”, they are about “Agenda”…you made the comment that “inclusiveness comes as natural as breathing to some of us”. The truth is that if you were as much about inclusiveness as you say you are, you would be just as outraged as the rest of us on tragic deaths of Woods and Doherty. Using your breathing metaphor…you choose to inhale Collins and expel Woods & Doherty because they don’t fit your world view agenda. Which in and of itself would be fine in a free world. But the world has become much less free since (to Random Thought’s point) you put a tyrant in the WH simply because he catered to your special interest…which you’ve clearly put before country. Note- When I say “you” I’m referring to the Progressive in you.
I”m going to catch up reading all the comments here, but I just wanted to say thank you for a very astute post. My family has never participated in scouting but in Canada my brother (whose two sons are now grown men) pulled his children out in the late 1980’s because of issues with the types of leaders in his part of Canada (and yes it had to do with sexuality even back then). I think that the Scouts are falling victim to the sort of moral relativism that is gradually infecting virtually every aspect of Western civilization. Perhaps God has just given us over to our sin(s).
I’ve only read Sarah’s first comment but to anyone with any sort of understanding, this is about an agenda and not really about the kids. Why sexuality would be even a part of the Scouting movement baffles me. But then, that is the peculiar aspect of the homosexual movement – while you and I and others mainly identify by some other aspect of our lives or maybe even multiple aspects of our lives (often faith, for example — I consider myself a Catholic before anything else), these people identify by sexuality almost exclusively.
Keep up the great work you do.
Why the alarmist reaction? The Boy Scouts have not endorsed same-sex marriage, birth control, abortion or gay sex, all of which the church teaches is sinful. But Catholic teaching does not exile gay and lesbian Catholics to remote islands. You can find many gay Catholics in Mass on Sunday, leading parish committees and even (if perhaps less acknowledged) in the priesthood . In a 1997 pastoral letter , “Always Our Children,” U.S. Catholic bishops wrote: “God does not love someone any less simply because he or she is a homosexual.” A policy that makes room for gay scouts should not be considered at odds with church teaching. If gay Catholics can find a home in the church, why can’t gay youth be accepted in the Boy Scouts?
They had a home the same as the gay Catholics had a home. You are cleverly twisting your argument Yesenia. If you wanted to be honest about it you would have acknowledged that the Catholic equivalent to what the BSA have done would be for the Catholic Priest to offer communion to the openly gay individual.
Catholic priests DO offer communion to openly gay individuals. I think that is Ms. Conrad’s point.
The Catholic Church welcomes homosexuals — as it should. Some parishes are particularly welcoming: http://www.mhr.org/about.htm
Why do you on the left insist on thinking in circles?
Apologies, Shutupnsing, but I have no idea what you’re talking about. Ms. Conrad made an excellent point, with which I agree.
That is because you see what you want to see. Of course the Catholic Church does not turn gays away…but (as of this writing) they do not offer them the sacraments of communion or marriage…which is the equivalent of the BSA ruling in violation of the Scout Oath. You have made this world all about “you”, and this is where me, me, me has led ~ http://shutupnsing.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/one-nation-under-carlyle/
Time to step up and own it my friend…
Yes, I own it — very happy to! Even with all the world’s many problems still left to solve, I would much rather be living now, in our modern age, than 20, 50, 100, 500 years ago. And I don’t see how the world is all about “me,” or any individual — last time I checked, anyway.
Open homosexuals can indeed receive communion at the church to which I linked above. Being gay is no more a sin than being straight — it’s the sin that makes the sinner, not his or her sexual identity.
Around and around and around we go…in the circle game. Yes, as I said they are welcome UNTIL they make it about their sexuality. For example, the Lesbian couple were completely fine at the Eucharist until she introduced her partner as “her lover”, at which point the priest withheld the communion exactly as he should have. I believe this took place in the Washington or Virginia area…for which the priest was later sidelined or somehow reprimanded. Let’s check in with each other in a year or so…to see how your “now” is doing.
Extending that comparison to the BSA, if a scout simply were to say, “I’m gay,” should anyone have a problem with it? But if he were to say, “I’m gay, and this dude over here is my lover,” then isn’t that a different story? Wouldn’t it be the same as if the scout were to say, “I’m straight, and I’m actively having sex with this girl over here,” in terms of it being the declaration of sexual activity, and not the sexual preference itself, that’s potentially problematic?
I mean this as no disrespect, but I wonder why we even bother…As previously stated and un-heard by you Lisa, this is not about “inclusiveness”. This is about an “agenda” that will not be satisfied until gay adults, and the pedophiles are welcomed…and until gay marriages are performed and the Eucharist desecrated unto the destruction of the Church. History has a funny way of repeating itself…my prediction is that you (Liberals) will be nowhere to be found when the poop hits the fan and the rest of us will have to clean up after you…you invite the tyrants and leave us to take them on. You are always “the first to run when the lead starts flyin'”…I think Churchill said that.
Run where? I haven’t lived in the US for years, and have no intention of returning.
It’s pretty funny that you insist that I am part of an “agenda” that wants to see “gay adults, and the pedophiles are welcomed…and….gay marriages…performed and the Eucharist desecrated unto the destruction of the Church,” when I have said many times in this comment thread that while I personally favor inclusiveness, I believe private groups can be as exclusive as they see fit.
And last I heard, pedophilia was against the law, and no one was clamoring to change that. So I don’t know why you’re even bringing it up, unless you want to talk about the subject of the Church’s pedophile problem?